ORDER : REPORTABLE 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dt. 18.03.1999 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the seniority list on 23.04.1998 was quashed with direction that seniority should be calculated by counting continuous length of service by taking into consideration the earlier seniority lists prepared in 1977 and 1993. 2. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition. The petitioner has contended that the Tribunal has wrongly interpreted proviso 6 to Rule 31 of the Rules of 1973 by drawing seniority on the basis of the length of service of Vaidya instead of date when the persons had acquired qualification of the Ayurved Chikitshak after appointment in Grade-II. 3. Admittedly, there were two pay scales on the post of Vaidya Grade-II and Grade-III relating to persons, who posses the minimum qualification of BHMS and others who did not posses the said qualification. Although both the grades having been merged later on, it would not mean that the persons who have acquired higher qualification would be placed junior/below persons, who did not posses the qualification at that time when such persons were appointed as Vaidya Grade-III and Vaidya Grade-II respectively. It is trite law that classification can be made on the basis of educational qualification and persons possessing higher qualification cannot be equated with those who possess lesser qualification or those who have acquired qualification subsequently. In the circumstances, interpretation to Rule 31 Proviso 6 has been wrongly taken by the Tribunal. Ayurved Chikitshak, who possess the qualification of BHMS prior to those, who acquired the qualification later on, accordingly would be entitled to seniority over and above the unqualified Vaidya, who later on acquired the diploma qualification. Merely by having longer length of service would not make any difference. Individuals having a similar qualification can be treated equal for the purpose of inter se length of service and not those having lessor qualification. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the seniority list dt. 23.04.1998 had been drawn on the basis of the date of acquisition of the qualification which was set aside by the Tribunal. He is unable to bring the reasons as to why the State did not challenge the order passed by the Tribunal. However, considering the view taken above, the order passed by the Tribunal dt. 23.04.1998 had been drawn on the basis of the date of acquisition of the qualification which was set aside by the Tribunal. He is unable to bring the reasons as to why the State did not challenge the order passed by the Tribunal. However, considering the view taken above, the order passed by the Tribunal dt. 18.03.1999 deserves to be set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The seniority list dt. 23.04.1998 is restored and accordingly the respondents are directed to draw seniority list of persons as per the qualification which they had acquired and grant benefit accordingly to the petitioner and similar situated persons in the department. Compliance of the order shall be made within four months from today. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.