JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P9 order by which the promotions granted to the petitioner to the posts of Shed Writer, Tally Supervisor, Shed Foreman and Assistant Wharf Superintendent were cancelled and the petitioner was directed to be reverted to the post of Shed Clerk. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Shed Clerk which is a Class III post in the Wharf establishment under the first respondent by Exhibit P1 order dated 20-07-2011. The appointment of the petitioner was under the dying in harness Scheme and the order specifically states that he will be on probation for a period of two years from his appointment and that he should produce the enclosed declaration form with regard to his marital status duly signed at the time of joining duty. The petitioner joined duty pursuant to Exhibit P1. His probation was declared. Thereafter by Exhibit P2 order, he was promoted as Shed Writer with effect from 21-07-2014. By Exhibit P3 dated 30-06-2016, the petitioner was promoted as Tally Supervisor on regular basis with effect from 21-07-2016 in an existing vacancy. Thereafter, he was promoted as Shed Foreman on regular basis in an existing vacancy with effect from 21-07-2018 by Exhibit P4 order and as Assistant Wharf Superintendent with effect from 21-07-2020 by Exhibit P5 order. 2. It is submitted that as per Exhibit P6, Cochin Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Amendment Regulations 2015, a minimum educational qualification of graduation is prescribed for appointment to the post of Shed Clerk under the Traffic Department. The regulation provides that the dependents of employees in service as on 26-09-1998 and those who died in harness/invalidated will be exempted from the purview of change in qualification of graduation. However, these dependents, when employed, would be required to acquire graduation before promotion to the next cadre and an undertaking to that effect should be obtained from them and this should be specifically mentioned in the appointment order. However, these dependents, when employed, would be required to acquire graduation before promotion to the next cadre and an undertaking to that effect should be obtained from them and this should be specifically mentioned in the appointment order. It is submitted that presumably because the amendments were notified only as per Exhibit P6 on 22nd March 2016, and the petitioner was appointed long before the said date, the petitioner was never informed that he did not have the prescribed qualification for the post or that he would have to acquire the said qualification for promotion to the next cadre as is evident from Exhibit P1 appointment order. 3. The petitioner’s probation was declared and he was duly promoted to the higher posts on a regular basis. However, Exhibit P7 notice was issued, informing the petitioner that he was exempted from acquiring the qualification of graduation for his initial appointment, but he had to acquire graduation before the next promotion and therefore the promotions granted to him to the posts of Shed Writer, Tally Supervisor, Shed Foreman and Assistant Wharf Superintendent were illegal and liable to be recalled. The petitioner submitted Exhibit P8 reply stating that he was never informed of any necessity to acquire the qualification of graduation and that since the qualification was prescribed only by Exhibit P6 amendment, which was notified on 22-03-2016, the petitioner stood exempted from the requirement as he had already been promoted to the higher post as on the date of the amendment of the Rules. It is further contended that even if the facts stated in Exhibit P7 are accepted in toto, the employee would have to acquire the qualification only at the time of promotion to the next cadre and since all the posts to which the petitioner had been granted promotions were Class III posts included in the clerical cadre, he would be required to acquire the qualification only when he aspires for promotion to the supervisory cadre i.e. Class II posts. The said objection of the petitioner was considered and Exhibit P9 order was passed stating as follows: “5. Accordingly Sri Niroop Raj K.P. being a dependant of a port employee who was in service prior to 26.9.1998, was exempted from acquiring graduation for initial appointment as Shed clerk but had to acquire graduation for promotion as per Recruitment Rule. The said objection of the petitioner was considered and Exhibit P9 order was passed stating as follows: “5. Accordingly Sri Niroop Raj K.P. being a dependant of a port employee who was in service prior to 26.9.1998, was exempted from acquiring graduation for initial appointment as Shed clerk but had to acquire graduation for promotion as per Recruitment Rule. However, Sri Niroop Raj K.P. had not acquired graduation, but got promoted to next post of Shed Writer in violation of the said Recruitment Rule. Again, Sri Niroop Raj K.P. was promoted to the post of Tally Supervisor, Shed Foreman and Asst. Wharf Superintendent without acquiring the requisite qualification of graduation. 6. It may be noted that the Port Trust Boards are vested powers to make regulations under section 28 of the Major Port Act, 1963, consistent with the Act, in respect of service matter of the employees. In exercise of these powers, Cochin Port Trust Board had framed the Cochin Port Trust Employees (RSP) Regulations, 2010. These regulations have already been approved and notified by the Central Govt. as required under section 124 and 132 of the said Act vide notification date 28.10.2010. Regulation of 5 of the said regulations inter-alia provides that “In respect of Class II, Class III and Class IV posts the manner of appointment shall be as laid down by the Board from time to time.” Accordingly, the Board in exercise of the powers vested on it by Regulation 5 has to lay down the Recruitment Rules for Class ll, Class III and Class IV posts. These Recruitment Rules will come into effect from the date on which the Board approves/passes it. Therefore, the contention of Sri. Niroop Raj K.P. that amendment Recruitment Rule is applicable only from 22.03.2016 has no merit.” 4. It was further held that going by the Recruitment Rules, the petitioner had to acquire the qualification of graduation before promotion to the next post and that the promotions granted without considering the said requirement were illegal and liable to be recalled. The petitioner’s contentions were therefore rejected and directions were issued to revert the petitioner to the post of Shed clerk which is under challenge. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had entered service in 2011 and had been granted the due promotions in accordance with the qualifications then in force. The petitioner’s contentions were therefore rejected and directions were issued to revert the petitioner to the post of Shed clerk which is under challenge. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had entered service in 2011 and had been granted the due promotions in accordance with the qualifications then in force. It is submitted that the qualifications were amended only by Exhibit P6 and this amendment also did not have the specific approval of the Central Government, as required under the provisions of Major Ports Act. It is, therefore, contended that the reliance placed on the amended qualifications which are not framed in accordance with law, to deny the benefits already granted to the petitioner is completely illegal and unsustainable. Reliance is also placed on Exhibit P10 award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, by which the amendment to the Recruitment Rules in respect of Class II and III posts was found to be unenforceable in view of the fact that they were not made after obtaining approval from the Central Government in accordance with Section 124(1) of the Major Ports Act. It is further contended that since the word ‘cadre’ has specifically been used by the respondents in the Recruitment Rules to denote the class of posts or group of posts in each class, the petitioner would have to acquire the qualification only when he seeks promotion to a post in the next cadre, i.e. to a supervisory post in Class II under the Recruitment Rules. 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is admitted that the petitioner had been appointed as the Shed clerk under the dying in harness scheme by Exhibit P1. It is further submitted as follows: “6. It is submitted that as part of restructuring of staff in the Ministerial Wing of the 1st Respondent Cochin Port Trust, the Ministry of Surface Transport in 1994, directed that the basic qualification of Direct Recruitment as LDC would be graduation. Accordingly, Board of Trustees of the 1st Respondent, vide Resolution No. 133 dated 28.11.1997, amended the Recruitment Rules for the post of LDC. Accordingly, Board of Trustees of the 1st Respondent, vide Resolution No. 133 dated 28.11.1997, amended the Recruitment Rules for the post of LDC. Thereafter, the CPT Board vide Agenda Item No. C-7 dated 13.12.1999, decided that the minimum qualification of graduation has to be enforced for entry point in Class-III Posts and as the entry point in the Wharf establishment is the post of Shed Clerk, which is analogous to the post of LDC in the Ministerial Establishment, the RR for the Post of Shed Clerk was revised prescribing minimum qualification as Graduation. A true copy of the decision of the Board of the 1st Respondent dated 28.11.1997 is produced herewith as Exhibit R1 (b). 7. It is further submitted that in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Shed Clerk, it has been pointed out in the Foot note (2) that “Dependents of those employees in service as on 26.09.1998 and who died in harness/invalidated will also be exempted from the preview of change in qualification to graduation. However, these dependents when employed would be required to acquire graduation before promotion to the next cadre.” A true copy of the relevant pages of the Recruitment Rules as applicable to the 1st Respondent is produced herewith as Exhibit R1(c). 8. It is submitted that the Port Trust Boards are vested with powers to make regulations under Section 28 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 (‘Act’) consistent with the Act, in respect of conditions of service of employees. The Cochin Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2010 (‘Regulations’) were issued in exercise of the above powers under Section 28 of the Act with the approval of the Central Government as required under Section 124 of the Act. This is evident from the preamble of the Regulations. A true copy of the relevant extracts of the Cochin Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2010 is produced herewith as Exhibit R1(d). 9. The Regulation 5 of the Regulations inter-alia provides that “in respect of Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV posts, the manner of appointment shall be as laid down by the Board from time to time.” 10. Accordingly, the Board in exercise of the powers vested on it under the Regulations by Regulation 5 (as approved by the Central Govt. 9. The Regulation 5 of the Regulations inter-alia provides that “in respect of Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV posts, the manner of appointment shall be as laid down by the Board from time to time.” 10. Accordingly, the Board in exercise of the powers vested on it under the Regulations by Regulation 5 (as approved by the Central Govt. and notified under Section 124 of the Act) has to lay down the Recruitment Rules for Class-II, Class-III and Class- IV posts. These recruitment rules come into effect from the date on which the Board approves it, which in the present case for Shed Clerk Was by way of Resolution No. 135 dated 13.12.1999.” 7. It is further contended that due to oversight, the requirement as provided in the service rules was not reflected in the appointment order and that the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Shed Writer without acquiring the qualification of graduation, was a violation of the Recruitment Rules. It is submitted that all the contentions of the petitioner had been properly examined. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that he has to acquire the qualification only when he is promoted to the next ‘cadre’ that is to a Class II post, it is contended that since graduation is the prescribed qualification for the post of Shed Clerk at present, there can be no doubt that promotion to higher posts without acquiring the said qualification was completely illegal and in violation of the Rules. Exhibit R1(a) scheme for compassionate appointment and R1(b) decision of the Board dated 28-11-1997 as well as R1(c) and (d) are produced along with the counter affidavit. 8. The petitioner has preferred a reply affidavit producing documents, including the Labour Court award and the Recruitment Rules. 9. I have considered the contentions advanced, the petitioner was admittedly appointed as the Shed clerk by Exhibit P1 order. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not have the qualification of graduation. There is no mention in Exhibit P1 order as to the requirement for graduation. The petitioner’s probation was declared and he was granted successive promotions as Shed Writer, Tally Supervisor, Shed Foreman and Assistant Wharf Superintendent. It is thereafter that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the promotions granted stand recalled by Exhibit P9. There is no mention in Exhibit P1 order as to the requirement for graduation. The petitioner’s probation was declared and he was granted successive promotions as Shed Writer, Tally Supervisor, Shed Foreman and Assistant Wharf Superintendent. It is thereafter that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the promotions granted stand recalled by Exhibit P9. It is the common case of the parties that the qualification for appointment to the post of Shed Clerk stood amended as graduation. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said amendment of the Rules has been held to be bad in law by Exhibit P10 award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Be that as it may, the parties are also agreed on the fact that the dependents of employees in service as on 26-09-1998 also stand exempted from the change in qualification to graduation. However, such dependants, when employed, would be required to acquire graduation before promotion to the next cadre. Therefore, the only question that requires to be decided is whether the petitioner ought to have acquired qualification of graduation before promotion to the next post or whether such insistence can be made only when such promotion is made to the next “cadre.” 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in Unreserved Employees Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 2005 (3) SLJ 47 , wherein it was held that “cadre” will include all the categories in a particular wing of service. It was held as follows: “For instance in the clerical cadre, it will include all the categories starting from Clerk upto Office Superintendent and similar will be the position in the technical cadres and it cannot be given a restricted meaning so as to restrict it to only one category out of the total service on the basis of one scale of pay.” 11. The parties have made available copies of the Recruitment Rules and the notifications with regard to the same. I notice that admittedly the service under the Cochin Port Trust have been classified into Class I, II, III and IV posts. The post of Shed Writer as well as all the posts to which the petitioner had been granted promotion are included in Class III, i.e. clerical cadre. I notice that admittedly the service under the Cochin Port Trust have been classified into Class I, II, III and IV posts. The post of Shed Writer as well as all the posts to which the petitioner had been granted promotion are included in Class III, i.e. clerical cadre. The Cochin Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, which are produced along with the counter affidavit and the full copy of the same, which is made available to me, would show that the schedule provides for Recruitment Rules of 70 categories of Class I cadre which has been notified with the approval of the Central Government. It is a specific case of the respondents that with regard to the posts in Class II, III and IV, the Port Trust was empowered to prescribe the qualifications and method of appointment and such prescription did not require the prior approval of the Central Government. Therefore, it is clear that the respondents themselves have specifically considered the posts in Class I as forming a separate cadre of posts. If that is the meaning given to the word ‘cadre’ by the respondents in their Recruitment Rules, then the contention of the petitioner that he has to acquire the qualification of graduation only at the time of promotion to the next cadre, i.e. the cadre of posts in Class II, would be a completely acceptable proposition. This is obviously the reason why the petitioner had been granted successive promotions by the respondents without insisting on acquisition of the qualification of graduation. 12. In the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the words “class of posts” used in the Recruitment Rules framed by the respondents is synonymous with the term “cadre.” Posts, grade, categories etc. are the other words used in the Recruitment Rules which have different and distinct meanings in the rules and the communications issued by the respondents which form part of the pleadings in the instant case. In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the question as to the date of issuance of the amendment and the applicability of the amendment does not require a consideration, since the only question which needs to be decided is whether the obligation to acquire the qualification of graduation arises only at the time of promotion to the next cadre. As a matter of fact, the schedule to the Cochin Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2010, which is produced as Ext.R1(d) along with the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2, specifically refers to Recruitment Rules of 70 categories of “Class-1 cadre.” 13. The Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Others vs. Govindappa and Another, 2009 KHC 4031, has held that the words “service” or “post” and “cadre” are expressions which cannot be equated with each other. It is stated that in order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre, there has to be a plurality of posts and therefore a cadre is evidently distinct from a post and has to be differently understood. 14. A Division Bench of this Court in High Court of Kerala and Another vs. Mohandas P.K. and Others, 2017 (3) KHC 703 had also held that a ‘cadre’ is a designated group of officers who are grouped together. Cadre means strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as an independent unit. It may have posts of different grades. It may even include temporary posts, work charged posts, supernumerary posts, shadow posts created in different grades to constitute cadre. 15. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the rejection of the petitioner’s contention by Exhibit P9 that he has to acquire the qualification of graduation only when he is promoted to a post in the next cadre, was completely untenable. Exhibit P9 is, therefore, found to be unsustainable. The same is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service as Assistant Wharf Superintendent and grant him all consequential benefits. 16. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.