ORDER 1. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 5 th September, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.701 of 2007. By the impugned judgment and order, the views expressed by learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 9 th March, 2007 have been upheld. 2. The learned Single Judge had quashed the promotion policy propounded by the appellants as contained in Resolution dated 8th December, 1994 passed by the Board of Directors of the appellant company. This policy related to the promotion of Senior Under Managers to the Post of Assistant Managers. 3. Prior to the Board Resolution dated 8th December, 1994, the policy followed again through a Resolution of the Board dated 13th May, 1975 was to the effect that promotions were to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and all the qualified candidates as on the date of vacancies would be considered for promotion, the seniority being determined on the basis of length of service in the immediately preceding grade and on the date of passing the qualifying examination. At that point of time, degrees were being granted by the different Universities quite independent of the examinations conducted by the Director General of Mines Safety. 4. As far as Respondent No.1 is concerned, he sat for the qualifying examination and was declared qualified on 3rd June, 1994. Unfortunately, his juniors had qualified the examination a year earlier some time in 1993. 5. On 8th December, 1994, the appellant company passed a Resolution to the effect that for the purposes of promotion to the cadre of Assistant Manager, the date of passing the qualifying examination would be taken into consideration. 6. The proposal for promotions on the basis of the Resolution is a somewhat detailed proposal and it mentions that apart from other things, there were quite a few persons who could be promoted, but there were not adequate number of vacancies. Therefore, for the purposes of giving an incentive for promotion, it was decided that the date of promotion would depend upon the date of qualifying the examination. Therefore, for the purposes of giving an incentive for promotion, it was decided that the date of promotion would depend upon the date of qualifying the examination. It was proposed that this criteria may be adopted taking into account the date of passing the qualifying examination for the purpose of promotion and to fill up 14 vacancies of Assistant Managers and 22 vacancies of Senior Under Managers available at that point of time. 7. In view of the policy that was accepted on 8th December, 1994, the case of Respondent No.1 was considered for promotion and by an order dated 29 th December, 1994, Respondent No.1 was granted promotion. The grievance of Respondent No.1 was that the Resolution of 8th December, 1994 is arbitrary and merely because his juniors had passed the qualifying examination in 1993 while he had passed the qualifying examination in 1994 could not be an adequate criteria for determining date of promotion and seniority in the higher grade. This submission was accepted by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the High Court. In our opinion, having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is quite clear that there was a rational basis for changing the policy of 13th May, 1975 and introducing a new policy on 8th December, 1994. An employee may or may not agree with the policy, but merely because an employee suffers some disadvantage does not make the policy irrational or illogical so as to suffer from the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is a basis on which the policy has been changed, viz., to incentivize the employees to get a better qualification so that they could be promoted on an earlier date. 8. The juniors of the respondents were not aware of this change of policy but had passed the examination in 1993. In our opinion, they deserve to be granted the benefit of having passed the examination earlier than the respondents who passed the examination in 1994. We do not find anything discriminatory or arbitrary in the view expressed by the Board in the Resolution of 8 th December, 1994 based on the proposal before it. 9. In our opinion, they deserve to be granted the benefit of having passed the examination earlier than the respondents who passed the examination in 1994. We do not find anything discriminatory or arbitrary in the view expressed by the Board in the Resolution of 8 th December, 1994 based on the proposal before it. 9. That being the position, we set aside the orders passed by learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench and hold that the promotion policy framed by the appellants on 8th December, 1994 is valid and it is upheld. 10. We have been informed by learned Additional Solicitor General that Respondent No.1 has already been promoted to the post of Assistant Manager and has been given appropriate seniority. 11. We make it clear that the promotion and the seniority of the respondents should not be disturbed. The appeal stands disposed of.