ORDER : The petitioners in these cases are calling in question order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the respondent – Bangalore University produced at Annexure-A. By the said order the University has withdrawn promotion given to petitioners to the cadre of Assistant Registrars from the cadre of Superintendents. The reason assigned for passing such an order, is that this court in W.P.Nos.53897/2013 filed by non-graduate officials of the University had passed an interim order staying the order dated 17.10.2012 passed in W.P.No. 31065/2012 filed by one Prakash Akki and the final seniority list of Superintendents, Senior Assistant and Assistants vide Annexure-K, re-fixing their date of promotion in the respective cadre by the University. 2. It has to be stated at this stage itself that the said W.P.No.53897/2013 was filed by the officials who were appointed as Junior Assistants and who possessed the qualification of pass in S.S.L.C. and were promoted to the post of Assistants, thereafter as Senior Assistants and subsequently as Superintendents, challenging the Final Seniority List and the review of the promotions made based on the order passed by this court in W.P.No.31065/2012 on 17.10.2012. They challenged the said order also contending that without impleading them and behind their back, an order had been obtained by the petitioner therein Sri. Prakash Akki directing the Bangalore University to finalize the Seniority List and review the promotion and rankings assigned strictly in accordance with the Statute, particularly Statute 25.4 of the Bangalore University Statutes and thereafter make appropriate promotions in accordance with the Final Seniority List to be prepared. The writ petition filed in W.P.No.53879/2013 has been disposed of by this court on 08.07.2016. In the said writ petition, this court has passed following order: “24. In the result and for the reasons set out herein above, the prayer made in the writ petitions for quashing the final seniority list and for declaration that minimum qualification prescribed as degree for promotion to the post of Assistant under schedule to statue 25.2 as inconsistent with the policy of the State Government and for consequential declaration as sought in the writ petitions are rejected. However, a direction is issued to the University by placing the submission of the counsel for the University on instructions from the University on record to immediately take steps to forward the draft statutes to the State Government for submission to the Chancellor for his assent in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 41 of the Act within a period of two weeks. The State Government shall thereafter take necessary action in terms of the provisions contained in Subsection (6) of Section 41 of the Act within the time frame prescribed therein in accordance with law for forwarding the same to the Chancellor. It is hoped that long standing grievance of the petitioners and many others similarly placed is addressed expeditiously.” 3. In so far as the grievances made by the officials who were promoted to the higher cadre of Assistants, Senior Assistants, Superintends, although they did not possess degree as a qualification, noting the submissions made by the University and referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.R.Kothandaraman Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board – (1994) 6 SCC 282 , this court has held that serious apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners therein that action was likely to be taken to demote them to the lower cadre of Junior Assistants ignoring the fact that from 1989 onwards, many of the petitioners were promoted to the cadre of Assistants and thereafter were given further promotion to the next cadre of Senior Assistant and in some cases to the further cadre of Superintendents was required to be addressed. Having said so, this court has noted in paragraph No.21 of the order as under: “21. As already adverted to above, counsel for the University has categorically stated and has indeed filed a memo before this Court stating that consistently they have not insisted for degree as qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant, Senior Assistant and Superintendent. He has also pointed out that in the amended statutes which is being forwarded to the State Government, this aspect has been addressed. He has also pointed out that in the amended statutes which is being forwarded to the State Government, this aspect has been addressed. In this view of the matter, I am sure the University will not resort to any such harsh action of demoting the petitioners to the lower cadre even before action is taken as per Section 41 of the Act in respect of draft statute which is being forwarded by the University to the State Government.” 4. In this view of the matter, I am sure, the University will not resort to any such action to revert the petitioner to the lower cadre even before action is taken as per Sec.41 of the Act in respect of draft statute which is being forwarded by the University to the State Government. 5. In paragraph Nos.22 and 23 of the said order, this court has further stated as under: “22. Sri Arun, learned counsel appearing for petitioner lays great emphasis on the judgment in the case of T.R.KOTHANDARAMAN AND OTHERS VS. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE AND OTHERS – (1994) 6 SCC 282 particularly the observations made in paragraph Nos. 13, 15 and 16 to contend that though educational qualifications can form basis of classification, it could not be laid down as an invariable rule that whenever any classification is made on such basis, the same must be held to be valid irrespective of the nature and purpose of the classification or the quality and extent of the difference in the educational qualifications. He, therefore, points out that even as per the existing statute framed under 1976 Act, the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant had to be treated as minimum qualification prescribed in the schedule for promotion to the higher post of Assistant from the cadre of Junior Assistant and has to be read differently for promotion and for direct recruitment. He urges that while the requirement of degree can be insisted for direct recruitment such a requirement cannot be insisted for promotion. 23. In the judgment in the case of T.R.KOTHANDARAMAN AND OTHERS Vs. He urges that while the requirement of degree can be insisted for direct recruitment such a requirement cannot be insisted for promotion. 23. In the judgment in the case of T.R.KOTHANDARAMAN AND OTHERS Vs. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BD AND OTHERS – (1994) 6 SCC 282 it is stated that even where classification was not acceptable to the Court on principle, it would, before pronouncing its judgment, bear in mind the historical background and while judging the validity of classification, the Court shall have to be conscious about the need for maintaining efficiency in service and also whether the required qualification is necessary for the discharge of duties in the higher post. It is in this background that the stand of the University in this case becomes very relevant inasmuch the University has come up with a specific stand that right from 1989 onwards promotions have been given to the higher cadre of Assistant to persons who had passed the departmental examinations and had put in requisite number of years of service in the cadre of Junior Assistant though they did not have the qualification of degree. The University’s stand discloses that it is making an attempt to ensure that such promotions are protected and there is absolutely no material placed before the Court that the University is trying to demote these persons who have been promoted long ago to the higher post. This stand of the University holds good not only with regard to the proposed amended statutes, but also in respect of old statutes because promotions have been indeed given when the statutes framed under old Act were in force. Therefore, after the State Government takes necessary action and if the Chancellor accords approval to the draft statute, the University has to proceed in the matter by taking necessary action in the matter in accordance with law.” 6. Therefore, it is clear that grievance made by the officials who were promoted to the post of Assistants, Senior Assistants and in some cases to the post of Superintendents has been taken note of and appropriate direction has been issued to the University and the State Government based on the stand taken by the University and the judgment of the Apex court in Kothandaraman’s case. 7. The grievance now made in these writ petitions pertains to promotion of petitioners to the post of Assistant Registrars. 7. The grievance now made in these writ petitions pertains to promotion of petitioners to the post of Assistant Registrars. In so far as the post of Assistant Registrar is concerned, the mode of appointment is by way of selection. The relevant entry in the schedule states as under:- Category of Post Pay Scale in Rs. Minimum Qualifications prescribed Probation period Method of Recruitment Assistant Registrar Rs.900-1750 (a). Graduate with good academic record Two years Either by direct recruitment or by promotion by selection from the cadre of Superintendents. (b). Administrative experience of not less than 5 years’ in a Government Institution or in a University 8. As can be seen from the petition averments and grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions, they had been indeed promoted from the post of Superintendents to the post of Assistant Registrars after finding them eligible and qualified possessing requisite qualification of graduation with the essential administrative experience etc. The Only reason for withdrawing their promotions was the interim stay granted by this court in W.P.No. 53897/2013 earlier. Indeed, promotions were given when the interim order was in force. Having realized the said fact that in the face of the interim order of stay granted by this court staying the previous order dated 17.10.2012 passed in W.P. No. 31065/2012 order and the final seniority list issued, the promotion given was withdrawn. 9. Now that the writ petition in W.P.No.53897/2013 has been disposed of recording a finding that there was no need to set aside the earlier order passed by this court or the Seniority List prepared thereafter particularly in the wake of the submission made by the University that they will not take any action to demote the officials who were already promoted and that they will take action to forward the draft statutes incorporating such an amendment to the State Government for necessary action in accordance with the provisions contained in the Sub-clause 6 of Section 41 of the Universities Act, 2000, there cannot be any impediment to allow these writ petitions. 10. In the result, the order, Annexure-A is set aside the promotion given to the petitioners to post of Assistant Registrars shall be restored. Petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits except the salary for the past period.