JUDGMENT : Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Challenge in the four captioned appeals is to a common order dated April 1, 2010 granting relief in two Writ Petitions No.4902/2004 and 4913/2004 to the writ petitioners. The State of Rajasthan is aggrieved by the decision and so are the appellant Amar Chand and others who were not impleaded as respondents in the two writ petitions. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioners was to the Recruitment Rule for the post of Assistant Director(Junior)/Secretary Marketing Committee prescribing a minimum educational qualification for being promoted to said post. Granting relief to the writ petitioners the learned Single Judge has taken the view that since the educational qualification prescribed was not prescribed for the feeder cadre post, the writ petitioners were denied right to be promoted which violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Relevant facts would be that the cadre comprises the post of a Marketing Supervisor at the base. The promotional post is that of a Junior Marketing Officer/Secretary Market Committees. The Recruitment Rule for the said post of Junior Marketing Officer/Secretary Market Committees reads as under:- S. No Name of the post Method of Rectt. with percentage Direct Recruitment Promotion Remarks Direct Rectt. Promotion Qualification & Experience Post from which to be made. Qualification & experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Junior Marketing Officer/ Secretary Market Committees 50% 50% B.A.with Economics as one of the subject or B.Com. or B.Sc. (Agriculture) of a University established by law in India. Marketing Supervisors 5 years service on the post mentioned in Col.6. 1. After Promoting all the six Marketing Supervisors the post shall be 100% filled in by Direct Rectt. 2.25% of the posts Direct Rectt. quota shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the Marketing Supervisors and Ministerial Staff of the Deptt. and Asstt. Secretaries Marketing Supervisor & Ministerial Staff of the Marketing Committees Subject to their possessing qualification mentioned in Col.5. and other Condition laid down in the Rules. 4. A perusal of the rule would show that in case of direct recruitment educational qualification prescribed is B.A. with Economics as one of the subject or B.Com. or B.Sc. degree in Agriculture. Under the remarks column it is mentioned that the existing six Marketing Supervisors shall be promoted and thereafter post in question shall be filled 100% by direct recruitment. 5. or B.Sc. degree in Agriculture. Under the remarks column it is mentioned that the existing six Marketing Supervisors shall be promoted and thereafter post in question shall be filled 100% by direct recruitment. 5. The writ petitioners did not possess the requisite educational qualification but were promoted as Junior Marketing Officer/Secretary Market Committees in view of the remarks column in the Recruitment Rule. 6. But concededly there is no such writing under the remarks column for the post of Assistant Director (Junior)/Secretary Marketing Committee. 7. In the decision reported as 1989 Supp(1) SCC 116 Roop Chand Adlakha v. DDA in para 18 the Supreme Court had observed as under:- “18....If the differences in the qualification have a reasonable relation to the nature of duties and responsibilities, that go with and are attendant upon the promotional post, the more advantageous treatment of those who possess higher technical qualifications can be legitimized on the doctrine of classification. There may, conceivably, be cases where the differences in the educational qualifications may not be sufficient to give any preferential treatment to one class of candidates as against another. Whether the classification is reasonable or not must, therefore, necessarily depend upon facts of each case and the circumstances obtaining at the relevant time. When the State makes a classification between two sources, unless the vice of the classification is writ large on the face of it, the person assailing the classification must show that it is unreasonable and violative of Article 14. A wooden equality as between all classes of employees irrespective of all distinctions or qualifications, or job requirement is neither constitutionally compelled nor practically meaningful. This Court in South Central Railway v. A.V.R. Siddhantti (SCR at p.214: AIR at p.1760) observed:(SCC p.343, para 20) “20...A wooden equality as between all classes of employees regardless of qualifications, kind of jobs, nature of responsibility and performance of the employees is not intended, nor is it practicable if the administration is to run. Indeed, the maintenance of such a “classless” and undiscerning “equality” where, in reality, glaring inequalities and intelligible differentia exist, will deprive the guarantee of its practical content. Broad classification based on reason, executive pragmatism and experience having a direct relation with the achievement of efficiency in administration, is permissible.” 8. Indeed, the maintenance of such a “classless” and undiscerning “equality” where, in reality, glaring inequalities and intelligible differentia exist, will deprive the guarantee of its practical content. Broad classification based on reason, executive pragmatism and experience having a direct relation with the achievement of efficiency in administration, is permissible.” 8. In the decision by a Constitution Bench reported as AIR 1974 SC 1 State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa it was held that for purposes of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, educational qualifications could be prescribed and thus notwithstanding there being a common class of Assistant Engineers, based on the educational qualifications for the promotional post, a reasonable classification in the feeder post would be permissible. Meaning thereby, for a higher post a minimum educational qualification can be prescribed as a qualification to acquire eligibility to be promoted, notwithstanding the same not being provided in the feeder cadre post. 9. The reason is obvious. As one moves up the pyramid the nature of the work may require a particular educational qualification. 10. It is trite that whether a minimum educational qualification should or should not be prescribed for a post has to be left by the Court to the executive authorities for the executive authority alone has the expertise in administrative matters and unless the decision is totally arbitrary or shocking the Court would not interfere. 11. In view of the facts noted above and the legal position, noting that for the post of Junior Marketing Officer/Secretary Market Committees a one time relaxation was given to the six Marketing Supervisors and on the strength thereof they earned the promotion, we allow the writ appeals and set aside the impugned decision dated April 1, 2010. S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.4902/2004 and 4913/2004 are dismissed. 12. No costs.