JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate. 2. The petitioners case is that despite the petitioners and the private respondents being placed in the common inter-se-seniority list of officers under SCERT under the same cadre and pay scale, vide Notification dated 27.04.2015, the petitioners have been given lesser avenues of promotion than the private respondents. The petitioners thus pray for declaring the impugned Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group A posts in District Centre for English) Recruitment Rules, 1987 and Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group A posts in District Centre for English) Recruitment (First Amendment) Rules, 1988, as illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional, in so far as it does not include the petitioners and other similarly situated Group-A Officers in the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion). 3. The petitioners counsel submits that the petitioner No. 1 is an Audio Producer, while the petitioner No. 2 is a Vocational Guidance Officer. They have been appointed to the said posts under a different set of rules, while the petitioners, who are Tutors, were appointed under the Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group A posts in District Centre for English) Recruitment Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 1987 Rules) and the Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group A posts in District Centre for English) Recruitment (First Amendment) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Rules). He submits that as per the common final seniority list of officers under the SCERT, having the pay scale of PB-3 Rs. 15600+5400 GP, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have been placed at Serial No. 7 & 8 respectively, while respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have been placed at Serial No. 9 & 11. He submits that in view of the petitioners and the private respondents being in the same common seniority list, the petitioners and the private respondents are in the same grade/cadre and accordingly, the petitioners should also be given the same avenues of promotion as given to the Tutors for promotion to the post of Chief Tutor, which has been re-designated as Deputy Director (Language Promotion). 4. 4. The petitioners counsel submits that the post of Chief Tutor can be filled up only by way of promotion from the post of Tutor, as per the 1987 Rules and the 1988 Rules. The post of Chief Tutor (District Centre for English) SCERT was re-designated as Deputy Director (Language Promotion) on 20.07.2005. The petitioners counsel also submits that as per the Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group A post) Recruitment Rules 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “1989 Rules”), the post of Professor, SCERT was to be filled up by promotion from the Lecturer, Project Co-ordinator, Programme Officer, IEDC, Educational Research Officer, Tutor, Audio Producer, AVGO SCERT, Counsellor with not less than 5 years regular service in the grade and holding at least second class Master Degrees. The posts of Professor under SCERT as Deputy Directors was thereafter re-designated vide Notification dated 02.03.2005 as follows:- “NOTIFICATION Dated Aizawl the 2nd March, 2005 The Governor of Mizoram is pleased to order re-designation of the following 3 (three) posts of Professor under SCERT as Deputy Directors on condition that the incumbents of the re-designated “Deputy Director” shall not be eligible to opt for retirement of 60 years as being enjoyed by those in the academic line. S. No. Name of Post Re-designated to 1. Professor Vocationalisation of Secondary Education (VOSE) Deputy Director (VOSE) 2. Professor, Integrated Education for the Disabled (IEDC) Deputy Director (IEDC) 3. Professor, Teacher Education (T.E). Deputy Director (T.E.) The petitioners counsel submits that while the petitioners and private respondents can be considered for promotion to the post of Professor (now re-designated as Deputy Directors), (VOSE), Deputy Director (IEDC) and Deputy Director (TE) as per the 1989 Rules, the petitioners are not eligible to be considered for Chief Tutor (re-designated as Deputy Director, Language Promotion) in view of the 1987 and 1988 Rules. He submits that the non-inclusion of the petitioners posts as feeder posts for Chief Tutor/Deputy Director (Language Promotion) is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional as the petitioners and the private respondents are all in the same cadre. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and Others vs. Atul Shukla and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 432 . 5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and Others vs. Atul Shukla and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 432 . 5. The Government Advocate, on the other hand has submitted that the petitioners have been appointed to different posts vide different recruitment rules, while the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have been appointed to the posts of Tutors under the 1987 Rules & 1988 Rules. She also submits that the different posts held by the Tutors, Audio Producer and AVGO required them to have different Educational Qualifications. Thus the petitioners are not in the same cadre as the private respondents. She also submits that the petitioners are not Lecturers in SCERT and that there is an Assured Career Progressive Scheme in the SCERT, which is applicable due to the stagnation in the promotion of the officers therein. She also submits that the petitioners also have avenues for promotion as they can be considered for promotion to the post of Professor SCERT, now re-designated as Deputy Director (VOSE), Deputy Director (IEDC) and Deputy Director (TE). The learned Government Advocate also submits that the question relating to nomenclature of posts, cadres, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy and the same is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State. She thus submits that the Government has a right to have a particular method of recruitment or eligible criteria or avenues of promotion and that the Court should not substitute its views for that of the State. In support of her submissions, the learned Government Advocate has relied upon P.U. Joshi and Others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 632. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed on 12.10.1999 and 27.06.2007 respectively as Tutors under the 1987 and 1988 Rules. The 1987 Rules only provides for recruitment to the post of Chief Tutor and Tutors (District Centre for English) in SCERT under the Education and Human Resources Department, Government of Mizoram. It does not provide for recruitment as Audio Producer or Vocational Guidance Officer, the post presently held by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and to which they were appointed on. It does not provide for recruitment as Audio Producer or Vocational Guidance Officer, the post presently held by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and to which they were appointed on. 11.07.1995 and 13.07.1995 respectively. 8. The 1987 Rules provides for promotion to the post of Chief Tutor from Tutor having not less than 5 years regular service in the Grade of Tutor. The educational qualification required is that the Tutor should have MA in applied linguistics/2nd Class MA in English Literature plus Diploma in FI/PGDTE plus a certificate of 12 (twelve) week course from CIEFL with 5 years experience as a Lecturer in language teaching in a Government College or Institution/as a Tutor in District Centre for English, preferably with a foreign degree. 9. The 1988 Rules, which is an amendment of the 1987 Rules, has substituted the earlier educational qualification required for the post of Tutor by holding that the Tutor should have 2nd Class MA in English or in applied linguistic with a 5 years experience as a Tutor in the District Center for the English or a Lecturer in the SCERT. The existing eligibility criteria in the 1987 Rules for the post of Chief Tutor and Tutor of District Centre for English were substituted by the 1988 Rules as follows:- “Chief Tutor 2nd Class M.A. in English or in Applied Linguistics with 5 years of experience as a Tutor in the District Centre for the English or as a Lecturer in S.C.E.R.T. Tutor Master Degree in English with a certificate of twelve week course from CIEFL, Hyderabad or a certificate of teaching English accepted by CIEFL as equivalent to that of twelve week course.” 10. Apparently, the petitioners are not Lecturers in SCERT, nor are they Tutors. Thus, they have no right to be considered for the promotion to the post of Chief Tutor which was later re-designated as Deputy Director (Language Promotion) as per the 1987 Rules and the 1988 Rules. 11. The petitioners and the private respondents are also eligible to be promoted for promotion to the post of Professors of SCERT, which has been re-designated as:- S. No. Name of Post Re-designated to 1. Professor Vocationalisation of Secondary Education (VOSE) Deputy Director (VOSE) 2. Professor, Integrated Education for the Disabled (IEDC) Deputy Director (IEDC) 3. Professor, Teacher Education (T.E). Deputy Director (T.E.) 12. Professor Vocationalisation of Secondary Education (VOSE) Deputy Director (VOSE) 2. Professor, Integrated Education for the Disabled (IEDC) Deputy Director (IEDC) 3. Professor, Teacher Education (T.E). Deputy Director (T.E.) 12. The challenge made by the petitioners to the 1987 Rules and 1988 Rules is only on the ground that they being in a common final inter-se-seniority list with the private respondents, they should also be eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion), as they are all in the same cadre, is baseless, for the simple reason that the mode of recruitment of the petitioners as Audio Producer and Vocational Guidance Officer is purportedly based upon a different set of Recruitment Rules than the private respondents, who are appointed under the 1987 Rules and the 1988 Rules. Further, the educational qualification required for the post of Chief Tutor/Deputy Director (Language Promotion), requires the person to have a 2nd Class MA in English or in applied linguistics. There is no averment by the petitioners that they have the above educational qualification, besides not being Tutors. The petitioners and the private respondents may be in the same grade, having a similar pay, but they are not in the same cadre. According to Fundamental Rule 9(4), “cadre” means the strength of a service or a part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. In the present case, though the petitioners and the private respondents, all work under the SCERT, the post of Tutor, Deputy Director (Language Promotion), are in a separate unit in the SCERT, as they are governed by the 1987 and 1988 Rules. Assuming that the petitioners and the private respondents are members of the same service, they do not belong to the same cadre, as they are governed by different set of recruitment rules. It is open to the Government to constitute as may cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to the administrative convenience and expediency, and it cannot be said that the post of the petitioners, cannot be left out from being the feeder post from the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion), as the educational qualifications required are different. 13. The Educational qualification required for the post of the above 3 Professors/Deputy Directors post as per 1989 Rules are as follows:- S. No. Name of Post Feeder of Prescribed Qualification 5. Tutor (SCERT) Dy. 13. The Educational qualification required for the post of the above 3 Professors/Deputy Directors post as per 1989 Rules are as follows:- S. No. Name of Post Feeder of Prescribed Qualification 5. Tutor (SCERT) Dy. Director Post 2nd Class M.A in English Literature with honour at Graduate level in English or M.A in applied linguistic plus certificate of twelve week course from CIEFL. Language T.E. VOSE IED 6. Audio Producer Dy. Director 3 Post Atleast 2nd Class Master Degree in Science/Social Science/Art plus experience in the development of Radio/TV. T.E. VOSE IED 8. Vocational Guidance Officer (SCERT) Dy. Director 3 Post Atleast 2nd Class Master Degree in the subject with atleast 2nd Class B.Ed/BT with not less than 3 years teaching experience in a recognized institution. Desirable: (i) A 1st Class Master Degree or Research Degree. (ii) Working knowledge of Mizo language. T.E. VOSE IED The above shows that for promotion to the next post of Professors/Deputy Directors as per the 1989 Rules, the petitioners and the private respondents are eligible to be considered for the same. 14. The placement of the petitioners and the private respondents in the common seniority list dated 27.04.2015 would only be relevant for consideration for promotion to the post of Professors/Deputy Directors in the SCERT under the 1989 Rules and the seniority list cannot be made applicable for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion). Accordingly, the petitioners’ contention that the parties being in the same cadre, the petitioners should also have be considered for the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion) cannot be read into the Rules of 1987 and the 1988 Rules, as they are not of the same cadre. Just because the petitioners are having the same pay scale as the private respondents and they are all eligible to be considered for the post of Deputy Director (VOSE), Deputy Director (IEDC), Deputy Director (TE), the same does not en-clothe them with any right to be included in the feeder post for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion). 15. 15. In the case cited by the petitioners counsel i.e. Union of India and Others vs. Atul Shukla and Others (Supra), the Apex Court had to decide whether the respondent, who at the relevant time held the rank of Group Captain (Time Scale) in the Indian Air Force were entitled to continue in service up to 54 and 57 years, depending upon whether they were serving in the Flying or Ground Duty Branch of the Force. The Apex Court held that classification made for the purpose of different retirement age for Time Scale Officers and Select Officers could not withstand scrutiny on the touchstone of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Thus, the Apex Court held that classification of employees based on the method of their recruitment was impermissible and that there could be any differential treatment between employee, directly recruited vis-à-vis another who is promoted. So long as the two employees are a part of the same cadre, they cannot be treated differently either for purposes of pay and allowances or other conditions of service, including the age of superannuation. 16. In the present case, the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have been appointed as Tutors on the basis of 1987 Rules and 1988 Rules, while the petitioners have been appointed as Audio Producer and Vocational Guidance Officer on the basis of different Recruitment Rules, which has not been produced by either of the parties. Thus, though the Pay scale of the petitioners and the private respondents are the same, they belong to different streams, as the 1987 Rules and 1988 Rules are only meant for appointment to the post of Tutor and promotion to Chief Tutor from the feeder post of Tutor only. The petitioners and the private respondents have to be treated differently as the educational qualification required for the post of Tutor/Chief Tutor and for the post held by the petitioners are different. The petitioners and the private respondents have to be treated differently as the educational qualification required for the post of Tutor/Chief Tutor and for the post held by the petitioners are different. Just because the petitioners and the private respondents are in the common final inter-se-seniority list under SCERT, published vide Notification dated 27.04.2015, and as they are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Professor, re-designated to Deputy Director (VOSE), Deputy Director (IEDC) and Deputy Director (T.E), the same cannot imply that the petitioners have a right to be considered for the post of Chief Tutor, which is a post to be filled up as per the 1987 Rules and 1988 Rules. The petitioners and the private respondents can be considered to be in the same cadre only when they are promoted to the posts of Deputy Directors as per 1989 Rules. It must be understood that being in the same grade is not the same as being in the same cadre. 17. In the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation vs. N.K. Vairamani and Another, (2004) 8 SCC 579 , the Apex Court has held that Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. 18. In the case of Ambika Quary Works vs. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 213 , the Apex Court has held that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It is stated that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. It is stated that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. In the case of Bhavanagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 111 , the Apex Court has held that a little difference in facts and additional facts can make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The facts of this case are completely different from the facts in Union of India and Others vs. Atul Shukla and Others (Supra). Accordingly, the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Others vs. Atul Shukla and Others (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. 19. In the case of P.U. Joshi and Others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 632, the Apex Court has held as follows: “We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate.” 20. In the present case, there is no change in the 1987 Rules and 1988 Rules with regard to appointment to the post of Chief Tutor (re-designated as Deputy Director Language Promotion). As the feeder post of Chief Tutor/Deputy Director (Language Promotion) is only from Tutor, this Court does not find any arbitrariness in the said Rules, just because the petitioners cannot be considered for the said post. As the feeder post of Chief Tutor/Deputy Director (Language Promotion) is only from Tutor, this Court does not find any arbitrariness in the said Rules, just because the petitioners cannot be considered for the said post. The petitioners cannot be said to have a legal or vested right to claim that the Rules governing the conditions for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion) should be changed so that the posts held by them should be made feeder posts for the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion). This is a matter of policy which will have to be decided by the State Government. Accordingly, we do not find the impugned 1987 Rules and the 1988 Rules to be illegal, ultra vires or unconstitutional. 21. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.