ORDER : 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus thereby quashing the Rule 6 (1) (c) and Clause 17 of Schedule-II of Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Education and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to fill all the posts of Block Education Officers from Assistant Block Education Officers only, in the ends of justice. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure P/2), in the ends of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner, including cost.” 2. Facts projected in the writ petition are that petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant Block Education Officer (In short ‘ABEO’) vide order dated 26.09.2015 under the Chhattisgarh School Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2009 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2009’). Respondents have notified the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2019’) repealing all rules corresponding to these rules and in force immediately before commencement of these rules. In the Rules of 2019, post ABEO is shown to be 100% direct recruitment and for their promotion to the next cadre is Block Education Officer (In short ‘BEO’) in which only 25% post has been reserved for promotion from the cadre of ABEO and rest of 75% post of BEO is to be filled from Principals. Petitioners have filed this petition stating that fixing of quota for promotion on the post of BEO to be discriminatory and further seeking relief of quashment of Rules (6) (1) (c) and Clause 17 of Schedule-II of the Rules of 2019 and for filling up of the post of BEO from the post of ABEO only and further to quash the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure P-2). 3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that in the School Education Department for the first time the rules have been framed for appointment of ABEO under the Rules of 2009. Pursuant to the Rules of 2009, post of ABEO were advertised in which petitioners participated and became successful and were appointed vide order dated 26.09.2015. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that in the School Education Department for the first time the rules have been framed for appointment of ABEO under the Rules of 2009. Pursuant to the Rules of 2009, post of ABEO were advertised in which petitioners participated and became successful and were appointed vide order dated 26.09.2015. Under Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2009, the promotional post for ABEO was BEO after completion of 10 years of service. 10% post of BEO were reserved for ABEO for their promotion. Under Rules 6 of the Rules of 2019, method of recruitment has been shown to be by way of direct recruitment through selection, by promotion, by transfer/deputation of person, under Schedule-II, 25% post of BEO is to be filled by promotion and 75% is to be filled up transfer/deputation of persons from other services and in remarks column of Schedule-II, 75% post are to be filled up by Principals with atleast 5 years experience. The provision under Rule-6 (1) (c) and entry made at Sr. No. 17 of the Schedule-II of the Rules of 2019 are contradictory. He also pointed out that for ABEO like petitioners, the first promotional channel is BEO and only 25% post have been reserved for them. The total post of ABEO is 268 and the promotional avenue for them is only on 185 posts of BEO which is less in number and even then only 25% post have been reserved for their promotion. Whereas, the Principals are having other promotional avenue, therefore their promotion on the post of BEO is discriminatory and arbitrary. During the course of arguments, he however fairly submits that the post can be filled-up by transfer/deputation also and therefore, he is mainly aggrieved with the ratio/quota fixed for promotion of ABEO to the post of BEO as 25% only and reserving 75% of post to be filled by the Principals. It is contended that respondents in arbitrary exercise of their powers have posted Lecturers on the post of BEO vide Annexure P-9 dated 04.10.2018. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Govind Dattatray Kelkar and Others vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Others, AIR 1967 SC 839 . 4. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Govind Dattatray Kelkar and Others vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Others, AIR 1967 SC 839 . 4. Learned State counsel opposing the petition and the submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioners were initially appointed under the Rules of 2009 and under the Rules of 2009, the promotion of ABEO was prescribed to the post of BEO and only 10% posts were reserved for promotion of ABEO to the post of BEO and 90% posts is to be filled up from the Principals having experience of 5 years. The posts of ABEO is created under the Rules of 2009 and for the first time advertisement for appointment of ABEO was issued in the year 2015. According to post set-up 268 posts of ABEO are sanctioned. In the year 2019, school falling under the supervision of Tribal Welfare Department have been merged into Department of School Education and under the Rules of 2019 according to post set-up there are total 4489 posts of the Principals. The avenue of promotion for ABEO is increased under the Rules of 2019 from 10% to 25%. The post of the Principal and BEO are equivalent post mentioned at S. No. 17 under Schedule-I and when Principal who is discharging the administrative functions in the school when placed and posted in block level then he works as BEO and therefore, posting of the Principal on the post of BEO is a transfer simplicitor. Petitioner has not questioned the competency of the authority of framing rules. The promotional avenue of ABEO under the Rules of 2019 has been increased from 10% to 25%. Chance of promotion is not a condition of service. The ground of hardship in future course to an employee cannot be a ground to strike down the entire rule as framed by the legislature in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in case of State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19 , Dhole Govind Saheb Rao vs. Union of India, (2015) 6 SCC 727 , Naveen Jain vs. Union of India, (2019) 10 SCC 34 and Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in case of State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19 , Dhole Govind Saheb Rao vs. Union of India, (2015) 6 SCC 727 , Naveen Jain vs. Union of India, (2019) 10 SCC 34 and Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. vs. State of U.P. (2003) 4 SCC 104 . 5. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. 6. Contention of petitioners for quashment of Rule (6) (1) (c) of the Rules of 2019 is that there is ambiguity under the Rules (6) (1) (c), 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2019 and further that the quota fixed for promotion of ABEO to the post of BEO of 25% is disproportionate. The Rules of 2019 has been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India. Earlier the schools are managed and controlled by School Education Department and Tribal Department. The schools running under two departments have been absorbed in the School Education Department and the two cadres of the teachers working therein have been made as E-Cadre and T-Cadre. Later on the teachers working with Panchayat and Local Body were also absorbed and under Rule 2 and 5 they have defined as teachers E-Cadre, T-Cadre, E-(LB) and T-(LB). 7. Perusal of the Rules of 2009 under which petitioners were appointed on the post of ABEO in the year 2015 would show that under Schedule-II of the Rules of 2009, the post of ABEO is direct recruitment post. Under Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2009 at S. No. 6, they are eligible for promotion on the post of BEO after completion of 10 years of service and in the same schedule at S. No. 5, the Principals of Government Higher Secondary School are eligible for their promotion to the post of Assistant Director (General/Block Education Officer) after completion of 5 years of service in feeder cadre. Under the old Rules 2009, next promotional post for ABEO and Principal was BEO and further the Principals can also be promoted on the post of Assistant Director (General) and therefore, under the earlier rules also, the post of BEO is also to be filled up by Principal. Under the old Rules 2009, next promotional post for ABEO and Principal was BEO and further the Principals can also be promoted on the post of Assistant Director (General) and therefore, under the earlier rules also, the post of BEO is also to be filled up by Principal. Under Schedule-II, the post of Assistant Director Public Instructions (General) and BEO is shown to be equivalent post to be filled up 100% by promotion which is mentioned at S. No. 7 of Schedule-II of the Rules of 2009. In the remarks column of said entry, 10% post of BEO/Assistant Director Public Instruction is reserved to be filled up by ABEO and 90% to be filled up by Principal having 5 years experience and it is further mentioned that at present Principal, Assistant Director and BEO are equivalent. 8. Under the Rules of 2019 according to the post set-up provided under Schedule-I (under Rule-5), ABEO is mentioned at S. No. 24, total post of which is mentioned as 268 Class-II post with Pay Matrix Level-9. Principal/BEO/Assistant Director (Administration) is mentioned at S. No. 17, Principal is also shown to be equivalent post of BEO with pay matrix level-12. Under Schedule-II, total post of BEO/Assistant Director (Administration) is separately mentioned as 185 whereas under entry No. 18 of Schedule-II, the total post of Principal is mentioned as 4489. Under Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2019 it is further mentioned under entry No. 5 that Principal, BEO and Assistant Director (Administration) are equivalent post and after completion of 5 years, they are eligible for promotion on the post of Deputy Director (Administration), District Education Officer/Principal Class-I. 9. From the aforementioned facts as appearing in the Rules of 2009 and the Rules of 2019, it is apparent that the post of Principal, BEO and Assistant Director are equivalent post. The Principal/BEO/Assistant Director (Administration) are having the same pay matrix i.e. level 12. 10. Under Rule 6 (1) (c) of the Rules of 2019 method of recruitment have been shown to be by transfer/deputation of persons who hold in a substantive capacity such posts in such services as may be specified in this behalf. The Principals are holding the administrative post in the schools and under the rules also the post of Principal and BEO has been shown to be equivalent post. The Principals are holding the administrative post in the schools and under the rules also the post of Principal and BEO has been shown to be equivalent post. From the statistics of the post as mentioned under schedule, the sanctioned post of Principal is about 4489 whereas the post of ABEO is only 268 and considering this factual matrix respondents have fixed the quota/ratio for promotion of ABEO and posting of Principal on the post of BEO. By posting of Principal to the post of BEO will make promotional avenues for the Lecturers to the post of Principal and total sanctioned post of Lecturers in the department is 46013. 11. As the post of Principal, BEO and Assistant Director (Administration) are equivalent post filling of post of BEO from the post of Principal is by way of transfer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K. Narayanan and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1994) Supp. (1) SCC 44 has as observed in Para-6 as under: “6...........“Recruitment” according to the dictionary means enlist. It is a comprehensive term and includes any method provided for inducting a person in public services. Appointment, selection, promotion, deputation are all well-known methods of recruitment. Even appointment by transfer is not unknown.......” 12. The employees are only having right to be considered for promotion on equal fair basis without discrimination but chance of promotion as such can not be claimed as a matter of right. There is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and it is burden upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. 13. In case of State of Mysore vs. G.B. Purohit, 1967 SLR 753 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that chance of promotion are not condition of service. In Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar vs. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317 considering the decision in G.B. Purohit (supra) observed thus: “15.........All that happened is a result of making promotions to the posts of Deputy Collectors division wise and limiting such promotions to 50% of the total number of vacancies in the posts of Deputy-Collector was to reduce the chances of promotion available to the petitioners. It is now well settled by the decision of the Court in State of Mysore vs. G.B. Purohit, 1967 SLR 753 (SC) that though a right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, mere chances of promotion are not. A rule which merely affects chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition of service........” 14. In case of Dwarika Prasad vs. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 535 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the challenge the fixation of quota has observed in Para 24 which reads as under: “Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service to describe the fixation of lower quota for POs as discriminatory. It is well established in law that the right to be considered for promotion on fair and equal basis without discrimination may be claimed as a legal and a fundamental right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution but chances of promotion as such cannot be claimed as of right [See: Ramchnadra Shankar Deodhar vs. State of Maharashra, AIR 1974 SC 259 ]. The decision relied on behalf of the appellants in the case of All India Federation of Central Excise vs. Union of India, 1977 (1) SCC 520 is of little assistance to the appellant's case. In that case, this Court has considered the proposals made by the department for re-fixation of quota to redress the grievance of the petitioners to some extent. In the other case between the same parties reported in All India Federation of Central Excise vs. Union of India, 1999 (3) SCC 384 , the Court could not be persuaded to issue any direction for alteration of the quota fixed. None of the two decisions therefore is helpful in supporting the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants.” 15. In case of Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the constitutional validity of an Act can be challenged only on two grounds viz. (i) lack of legislative competence and (ii) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part-III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provisions. 16. In State of A.P. vs. Mc Dowell and Co. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the constitutional validity of an Act can be challenged only on two grounds viz. (i) lack of legislative competence and (ii) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part-III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provisions. 16. In State of A.P. vs. Mc Dowell and Co. (1996) 3 SCC 709 , Supreme Court opined that except the above two grounds there is no third ground on the basis of which the law made by the competent legislature can be invalidated and that the ground of invalidation must necessarily fall within the four corners of the aforementioned two grounds. 17. Reverting back to the facts of the present case though initially the petition was also challenged on the ground of provision under Section 6 (1) (c) and filling of post by transfer however during the course of argument learned counsel has made submission that he is not pressing this ground. Thereafter had made his submission with respect to making 25% post available for promotion for ABEO to be discriminatory. 18. In the aforementioned facts of the case and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.