Page No.# 1/27 GAHC010070292023 2026:GAU-AS:13600-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1790/2023 TEPUNOL YORE AND 3 ORS. DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER, DIST.- CHUMUKEDIMA, NAGALAND. 2: I. ACATO CHISHI DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER DIST.- NIULAND NAGALAND. 3: ALEMLA AIER DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER DIST. PEREN NAGALAND. 4: P. LIPICHEM SANGTAM ASSISTANT PROJECT OFFICER DIST. KIPHIRE NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA, NAGALAND. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY / SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY / SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS Page No.# 2/27 GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND. 4:THE DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF LAND RESOURCES GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND. 5:R. IMTISUNGKUM DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF LAND RESOURCES GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND. 6:BIREN CHETTRI DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER DISTRICT- MON NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ZHIMOMI, MR B PRASAD,MR P J BORAH,MR D K MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, NAGALAND, MR S BORGOHAIN (R- 6),MR. K N CHOUDHURY ,N GAUTAM (r-2,4),MS N MAHANTA (r-2,4),MR. D J DAS (r-2,4) BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate (through video-conferencing), assisted by Mr. B. Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.N. Balgopal, Advocate General, Nagaland, assisted by Ms. Nitya Nambiar, Ms. L.A. Shishak, Mr. Y.B. Aggarwal and Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocates. Page No.# 3/27 : Ms. T. Khro, Additional Advocate General, Nagaland and Ms. M. Kechii, Additional Advocate General, Nagaland. : Mr. S. Borgohain, Advocate for respondent No.6. Date on which Judgment is Reserved : 28.08.2026 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 15.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the Judgment : NA. Whether the full Judgment has been pronounced : yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (A.D.Choudhury, J) 1. By preferring the present writ petition, the petitioners, who are members of the Extension Wing of the Nagaland Land Resources Development Department, have challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Schedule-II of the Nagaland Land Resources Development (Services) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2008), in relation to the qualifications prescribed for the posts of Deputy Director, Joint Director and Director. The further challenge made is to the communications dated 09.03.2022 and 25.03.2022, whereby respondents No. 5 and 6 were sought to be promoted to the next higher grade under the said Rules, 2008. Page No.# 4/27 2. Before dealing with the respective arguments of the parties, let us have a cursory glance at Schedule II of the Rules 2008. It indicates that the Service has two Wings: the Technical Wing and the Extension Wing. Two wings have separate entry points, distinct qualification requirements, and an independent promotional channel at lower and middle levels, though they meet at the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer. The Rules 2008, however, prescribe a qualification-based system of differentiation, particularly for higher posts above the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer, starting at the Deputy Director level. Such posts are reserved exclusively as promotional posts for the District Project Officer/Project Officer in the feeder cadre. 3. Therefore, the present challenge is posed by the Extension Wing Officers who can't be considered for the next higher grade, starting from Deputy Director, due to the lack of the required educational qualifications prescribed under the Rule. 4. Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, argues that the classification between the Technical Wing and the Extension Wing ends at the grade of District Project Officer/Project Officer, and at this grade, there is no distinction between the said Wings and, therefore, having removed the classification, the exclusion of the Extension Wing from Page No.# 5/27 consideration based on qualification for further promotion is ex facie arbitrary illegal and unconscionable in fact and in law. 5. It is urged that, having removed the classification in the feeder grade, i.e., District Project Officer/Project Officer, the exclusion of such employees in the Extension Wing for further promotion suffers from a complete lack of rationale whatsoever. 6. It is argued that there is a complete omission of employees from the Extension Wing from the promotional posts of Deputy Director and above. Thus, Schedule-II of the Rules, 2008, insofar as it relates to the qualification for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and above, fails the test of constitutionality and that The denial of consideration for promotion violates the petitioners' rights under Part III of the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14 and 16. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel contends that once both the Technical Wing and Extension Wing converged at the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer, they formed a homogeneous class and any further exclusion based on educational qualification amounts to hostile discrimination violating the petitioners’ rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is further urged that past transfers between the two wings and parity in their pay scales demonstrate functional interchangeability, thereby rendering the classification artificial. Page No.# 6/27 9. Referring to the earlier writ proceedings, i.e., WP(C) No. 02/2019 and WP(C) No. 40/2020, the learned Senior Counsel argued that the aforesaid writ petitions were filed assailing the arbitrary action of the State respondents. However, based on a tripartite agreement entered into between the two associations representing the two wings and the State, the said writ petitions were withdrawn as a promise was made for amendment of the Rules, 2008, creating promotional avenues for the extension wing as well. However, when the respondents reneged from their unequivocal promise, the present writ petition was filed. 10. In this context, it is argued that the respondents, in their agreement and before this court in the earlier proceeding, have candidly acknowledged the illegality of the Rules, 2008, and therefore, the State is under a bounden duty to take appropriate measures. 11. While summarising his arguments, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, contends: I. The 2008 Rules are manifestly arbitrary as the posts held by both the wings are not separate and distinct and have never been kept apart; No posts of Assistant Inspector or APO have been separately created or earmarked for the Technical or the Extension Wing exclusively; Duties attached to the posts of both the wings are identical with the same functions; and the Posts held by both the wings carry the same scale of pay reflected in Schedule I of the Rules. Page No.# 7/27 II. The classification is not based on higher/lower educational qualifications or between Degree and Diploma holders but is based on the subject of graduation and post- graduation; such classification is manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory. III. The posts of both wings are interchangeable, which can be ascertained from the past history of interchangeable transfers and parity in scales of pay; no post of Assistant Inspector/Assistant Project Officer has been separately created or earmarked for the Technical or Extension Wings exclusively, inasmuch as the duties attached to the posts of both wings are identical. On this point, the learned senior counsel relies on the recommendation of the Cadre Review Committee and the similarity in the scales of pay between the wings. 12. To buttress his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance on S.M. Pandit and Ors. -Vs- The State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1972 4 SCC 778, Vijay Kumar and Ors. -vs- The State of Rajasthan and Ors reported in MANU/RH/0600/215, Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India reported in (2023) 5 SCC 1, State of Gujarat Vs. Shri Ambika Mills reported in (1974) 4 SCC 656., Makhan Lal Malhotra and Ors. vs Union of India, reported in AIR 1961 SC 392, and Budhan Choudhry and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, reported in MANU/SC/0047/1954. 13. Per contra, Mr. K. N. Balgopal, learned Advocate General, Nagaland, contends that the service is consciously structured into Page No.# 8/27 two distinct streams with different qualifications and functions, and the post of Deputy Director onwards requires technical expertise. 14. It is argued that classification based on educational qualification is well recognized in service law and has been settled by the Supreme Court, in Chandan Banerjee Vs Krinshan Prasad Ghosh, reported in 2021 SCC Online 1 SC 773. The learned Advocate General also relies on State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and others, (1974) 1 SCC 19, Mohammad Shujat Ali Vs. Union of India reported in (1975) 3 SC 76. 15. It is further argued that the executive, not a Writ Court, is the best authority to determine the appropriate educational qualifications for specific posts. A writ Court may not usurp executive powers and direct the executive to exercise its rule- making power in a definite manner. 16. The State further submits that occasional transfers or a similar scale of pay do not obliterate the cadre-distinction and that no right to promotion can be claimed dehors the rules. 17. As regards the agreements and concessions by the State in the earlier writ proceeding, it is argued that there cannot be any estoppel against a statute and therefore, no writ can be issued to enforce the agreement in contravention of law, more particularly, when such an agreement on behalf of the State was not Page No.# 9/27 executed by any authorized and/or competent authority. 18. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 19. Before analysing to the merits of the rival contentions, it would be apposite to briefly note the scheme of the Rules, 2008. 20. The Rules, 2008, constitute a complete code governing recruitment and conditions of service in the department. Under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2008, and the Schedule-I thereto, the service is organized into two distinct streams, namely, the Technical Wing and the Extension Wing. Schedule I separately classifies the posts under each wing, including the number of posts, class, and pay scale. Serial Nos. 9 and 10 of the Schedule-I show that the entry points into the service are Assistant Inspector (Technical) and Assistant Inspector (Extension), respectively. 21. Rule 6 of the Rules, 2008, deals with the mode of recruitment, and qualifications, etc., and the details are specified in Schedule II. Schedule-II prescribes the method of recruitment, the feeder cadres, and the educational qualifications for appointment and promotion to each post. 22. A closer scrutiny and conjoint reading of these two schedules indicate that the two wings have separate entry points, distinct Page No.# 10/27 qualification requirements, and an independent promotional channel at the lower and middle levels, both of which meet at the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer. 23. Under the Rules, 2008, the entry into the service in the Extension Wing is at the rank of Assistant Inspector. The next promotional post is Assistant Project Officer. The Assistant Project Officer is a feeder post for the District Project Officer/Project Officer. For these promotional posts, 40% are reserved for the Extension Wing and 60% for the Technical Wing. 24. From the post of Deputy Director onwards, the posts are fully reserved for departmental promotion, with the post of District Project Officer/Project Officer as the feeder post. For such promotional posts above the District Project Officer/Project Officer level, the prescribed educational qualification is B.Sc.(Agri)/B.Sc.(Horti)/B.Sc.(Forestry)/ B.E.(Agri). Thus, Rules, 2008, continue to emphasize qualification-based differentiation, particularly for higher supervisory posts starting at the Deputy Director level, thereby retaining the structural distinction between the Technical and Extension Wings even within a unified departmental framework. 25. Therefore, Extension Wing Officers, though they can reach the position of District Project Officer/Project Officer, lack the Page No.# 11/27 required educational qualifications for such promotional posts, including those of Deputy Director and above. It is apposite to record here that such qualifications are also prescribed for the Technical Wing officers at the entry level. 26. Thus, the Rules, 2008, continue to emphasize qualification-based differentiation, particularly for higher supervisory posts starting at the Deputy Director level, thereby retaining the structural distinction between the Technical and Extension Wings even within a unified departmental framework. 27. The distinction between the two Wings is explicitly embedded in the Rules of 2008. The first indication appears in Schedule I (Classification of Posts), where separate posts are earmarked for each stream. For instance, the Schedule identifies Assistant Project Officer (Technical) and Assistant Project Officer (Extension) as distinct posts, and likewise, distinguishes between Assistant Inspector (Technical) and Assistant Inspector (Extension), the next higher post. This is not a mere nomenclature difference but reflects two parallel channels within the same department. 28. The distinction becomes clearer in Schedule II, which addresses recruitment and promotional qualifications. 29. The provisions show that: Page No.# 12/27 I. For posts in the Technical Wing, the prescribed qualifications are science-based and domain-specific, such as B.Sc. (Agri), B.Sc.(Forestry), B.Sc.(Horti) or equivalent technical degrees. II. In contrast, for posts in the Extension Wing, qualifications include Social Sciences and Extension-oriented disciplines, such as M.A. (Sociology) and M.Sc. (Agronomy/Extension), Environmental Science, Botany, or Allied Fields. 30. The Rule further reinforces such structural separation by maintaining distinct promotional ladders at the lower and middle levels. Promotion to Assistant Project Officer (Technical) is drawn from Assistant Inspector (Technical) with specified technical qualifications. Promotion to Assistant Project Officer (Extension) is drawn from Assistant Inspector (Extension) with corresponding extension- oriented qualifications. 31. The aforesaid scheme of the Rules 2008 shows that the two wings have separate entry points, distinct qualification requirements, and separate promotional channels at the lower and middle levels. It is true that the two wings meet at the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer, which is the feeder post for promotion to Page No.# 13/27 Deputy Director. However, the fact that the two wings meet at the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that all distinction between the two wings stands obliterated for all purposes of further promotion. 32. In the scheme of things and the challenge made, we are therefore required to examine whether the two wings form a common feeder category at the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer, and therefore, the rule-making authority could not prescribe an additional educational qualification for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Director and above. 33. In this context, it would be apposite to notice that the constitutional validity of a classification in a service matter is to be tested on the touchstone of the well-settled twin requirements, namely, that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from those left out and that such differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The aforesaid principle, however, does not mean that persons belonging to the same cadre or forming a common feeder category can never be further classified for the purpose of promotion. 34. Educational qualification is a recognized basis of classification in service jurisprudence, provided such qualification bears a Page No.# 14/27 reasonable relation to the nature of the higher post and the efficiency required to discharge the duties attached thereto. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Trilokinath Khosa (supra) has recognized that classification on the basis of educational qualification for the purpose of promotion is not per se violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The mere fact that persons may belong to the same cadre or may be performing similar functions at one level of service does not render every further classification based upon educational qualification unconstitutional. At the same time, the prescription of an educational qualification cannot be sustained merely because it is described as an educational qualification. The qualification prescribed must have a reasonable connection with the duties and responsibilities attached to the higher post. 35. Therefore, the constitutional inquiry is whether the differentia adopted by the rule-making authority bears a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Said principle was also explained in Muhammad Sujat Ali (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question of educational qualification in the context of promotion and emphasized that the validity of such classification has to be examined with reference to the nature of duties and the requirement of efficiency in the higher post. Thus, there cannot be an invariable rule that every classification Page No.# 15/27 based upon educational qualification is either valid or invalid. The question has to be examined having regard to the facts and statutory scheme governing the service. 36. The same principle has been reiterated in Chandan Banerjee (Supra), relied upon by the learned Advocate General. It was held that the prescription of educational qualifications and the determination of eligibility for appointment or promotion are primarily matters within the domain of the rulemaking authority. The court exercising judicial review does not sit in appeal over such policy choices. Interference would be warranted where the qualification prescribed is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or wholly unrelated to the nature of duties attached to the post. 37. It is in the aforesaid background that the challenge to the Rules, 2008 is required to be examined. 38. The petitioner's principal contention is that, since the technical wing and the extension wing converge at the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer, they constitute a homogeneous class, and no further distinction can be made between them on the basis of their educational qualifications. 39. We are unable to accept the said contention. The convergence of the two wings at the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer only identifies the feeder post for the next higher promotional post. It does not prescribe that every person occupying the post of District Project Officer/Project Officer, Page No.# 16/27 irrespective of educational qualification, shall necessarily be eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and thereafter. 40. In fact, the Rule 2008, itself makes the position clear. Schedule II provides that the post of Deputy Director is to be filled by promotion from amongst the members of Nagaland Land Resource Services Class 1 Jr, namely District Project Officer/Project Officer, who have rendered not less than three years' continuous service in that grade and possess the prescribed educational qualification. The prescribed qualifications are B.Sc. (Agriculture), B.Sc. (Horticulture), B.Sc. (Forestry) and B.E. (Agriculture). The same technical qualification is prescribed for the higher promotional posts of Joint Director and Director. 41. Thus, the Rule does not make the source of requirement as the basis of exclusion from promotion to the post of Deputy Director. The Rule prescribes an educational qualification as a condition of eligibility for consideration for promotion to the higher post. 42. The distinction, therefore, is not merely between the technical wing and the extension wing, but between those who possess the prescribed educational qualification and those who do not. It is also significant that the same technical qualifications are prescribed at the entry level for the technical wing. The qualification requirement at the stage of promotion to the Deputy Director and above is, therefore, not an isolated requirement Page No.# 17/27 introduced for the purpose of excluding the extension wing. It forms part of the qualification-based structure of the Rules 2008. 43. We need not repeat the settled proposition that educational qualification is not a superficial attribute in service jurisprudence. The rule-making authority may legitimately consider that a particular academic background equips an officer with the specialized knowledge and competence required to discharge higher responsibilities. 44. Where a higher post involves a greater degree of technical supervision, planning, evaluation, and decision-making, the prescription of a corresponding technical qualification cannot, in the absence of material showing otherwise, be termed arbitrary merely because some other category of employees may also be capable of discharging some of the functions attached to such posts. 45. We are conscious of the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the duties attached to the posts in both wings are identical, that the posts are interchangeable, that the posts carry the same scale of pay, and that there have been instances of transfer from one wing to the other. The petitioners have also relied upon the Cadre Review Committee report in support of the aforesaid submission. 46. Even assuming that there is some overlap in duties performed by the officers of the two wings, or that, in the past, officers have been posted from one wing to another, the same would not Page No.# 18/27 by itself answer the constitutional question. The relevant uestion still remains whether the educational qualifica ion prescribed for promotion to the higher post has a rational exus with the requirements of that post. 47. Similarly, the fact that feeder posts carry the same scale of pay cannot be a determinative factor in eligibility for the promotion to a higher post. Pay scale and promotion eligibility operate in different fields. A common pay scale at a particular level cannot override the rule-making authority to prescribe a qualification for promotion to a higher post. 48. We also do not consider it necessary to enter into the disputed factual question as to whether the duties performed by the two wings are identical in every respect. The validity of the impugned provisions can be examined from the scheme of the rules themselves. The court is concerned with the legality and constitutional validity of the qualification prescribed for the higher post and not with substituting its own assessment as to whether some other qualification would also have been sufficient. 49. As discussed herein above, in the present case, the differentia is discernible. The rules prescribe a particular technical educational qualification for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Director and above. Therefore, the classification is founded on an intelligible criteria. 50. In our opinion, the nexus is also discernible from the rules themselves. Page No.# 19/27 51. The technical qualifications prescribed for higher posts are qualifications in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and agricultural engineering. These are not qualifications unrelated to the subject matter of service. The rulemaking authority has consciously prescribed these qualifications both in the technical and the level of higher promotion. 52. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that prescription of such qualifications for promotions to the post of Deputy Director and above is entirely unrelated to the nature of the higher post or that the qualification is so irrational that no reasonable authority could have prescribed the same. In the absence of such material, this Court would not be justified in substituting its own opinion for that of the rulemaking authority. 53. It is true that the right of an employee to promotion is to be considered in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there is no vested right to claim promotion to a higher post dehors the eligibility criteria prescribed under the statutory framework. The prescription of an eligibility condition, if otherwise constitutionally valid, cannot be treated as a denial of the right to consideration for promotion. 54. The submission that the extension wing is completely deprived of promotion beyond the post of District Project Officer/Project Officer, therefore, cannot be considered in isolation from the qualification prescribed under the rules. The consequence that an officer who does not possess the Page No.# 20/27 prescribed qualification becomes ineligible for further promotion shall not render the qualification prescribed unconstitutional. 55. The petitioners have also relied upon certain past transfers of the officers between the technical wing and the extension wing and similarity in the scale of pay to contend that the two streams are in practice interchangeable and therefore constitute one homogeneous class. 56. We are unable to accept the submission in the manner urged. 57. In service jurisprudence, administrative interchangeability in the matter of posting cannot be equated with legal equivalence for every purpose of recruitment and promotion. The feeder structure and eligibility for promotion must be determined in accordance with the statutory rules. Transfers by their very nature are an incidence of service and may be restored for exigency of service, temporary shortage of personnel, or administrative balancing. Such transfers and similarity in pay scale do not, by themselves, alter the qualification base or service structure prescribed by the rules. 58. Even if an officer is posted to perform a function associated with another wing, such posting does not by itself confer upon the officer a statutory egibility beyond the Rules. There is also no provision in the rules 2008 indicating that such transfers result in permanent absorption of an officer into the other wing, integration of seniority, or waiver of educational qualification prescribed for promotion to the higher post. Page No.# 21/27 59. In the absence of such a provision, isolated instances of transfer cannot be treated as having the effect of altering the statutory framework. 60. Even assuming that some functions of the two wings overlap in practice, that itself does not establish that the statutory framework treats the two categories as identical for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Director and above. 61. Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioners on the tripartite agreement dated 02.09.2022 and the recommendations of Cadre Review Committee to contend that the state had accepted parity between the two wings and therefore are stopped from denying promotional avenues to the extension wing. 62. We are unable to accept this contention. The service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the Rules, 2008. Such statutory rules cannot be overridden, amended, or diluted by an executive agreement or understanding or based on certain recommendation of the Cadre Review Committee. 63. The rules have been framed in exercise of power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and therefore carry the force of law. Neither an agreement entered into between the representatives of the employees and state authorities nor the recommendation of Cadre Review Committee, by itself operate in derogation of statutory rules. If eligibility for promotion to a particular post is prescribed by rules, it cannot be altered by consent or understanding or recommendation unless Page No.# 22/27 the rules themselves are amended in accordance with law. 64. The doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to compel the state to act based on such an agreement when it is contrary to the statutory framework. Legitimate expectation, at its highest, may entitle an employee to fair consideration of a representation made by the administration; it cannot compel the state to create a promotional avenue or dispense with an eligibility condition prescribed by statutory rules without amending the same. 65. We may now deal with the authorities relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. 66. In Budhan Choudhury Vs. State of Bihar reported in Manu/SC/0047/1954, relied upon by the learned senior counsel, the hon’ble Apex Court laid down the well-settled twin test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, namely, that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia and that such differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. There can be no quarrel with the said proposition. As noted above, we find that both requirements are satisfied in the present case. 67. The reliance upon Makhan Lal Malhotra (supra) also does not advance the case of the petitioners. The said decision cannot be read as laying down a proposition that an educational Page No.# 23/27 qualification can never constitute a permissible basis of classification in service matters. On the contrary, the validity of such classification has always to be examined with reference to the nature of the post and the object sought to be achieved. 68. Much emphasis has been placed upon S. M. Pandit (supra). The said decision, however, cannot be applied mechanically to the present case. The factual and legal basis of the classification considered therein was materially different. In the present case, it is not a question that persons similarly situated are discriminated against on the basis of their source of recruitment. Rather, the question before us is whether the rulemaking authority can prescribe a particular educational qualification for promotion to the higher post. The subsequent Constitutional Bench decisions, particularly Triloki Nath Khosa (supra) and Muhammad Sujath Ali (Supra), make it clear that educational qualification can constitute a permissible basis of classification for promotion subject to the requirement of a nexus with the higher post. 69. The reliance upon Vijay Kumar (supra) is also of no assistance. The proposition that equals cannot be treated unequally without a rational basis is firmly settled. But before the said principle can be invoked, the petitioners must establish that the two categories are similarly situated for the very purpose for which the classification has been made. The fact that two wings meet at the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer does Page No.# 24/27 not establish that they are identical in all respects for the purpose of determining eligibility for promotion to a higher post carrying a prescribed technical qualification. 70. The reliance upon Ambika Mills Limited (Supra) also does not take the case of the petitioners any further. The said decision reiterates that the validity of a classification has to be examined with reference to the purpose for which the classification has been made. In the present case, the purpose is to prescribe eligibility for promotion to a higher post in the service. The qualification prescribed has a rational relation to that purpose. 71. The petitioners have also relied upon Janhit Abhiyan (supra), particularly the minority opinion. However, the observations relied upon are part of the minority opinion and, in any event, do not lay down any principle which should invalidate the prescription of educational qualifications for promotion in the facts of the present case. 72. As discussed herein above, the issue before us is governed more directly by the Constitution Bench’s decisions in Triloki Nath (supra) and Mohammad Shujat Ali (supra), which address educational qualifications in service matters. 73. The argument of the petitioners that classification is based upon the subjects studied in graduation or post-graduation and not upon higher or lower educational qualification also cannot be Page No.# 25/27 accepted. 74. A qualification may be differentiated not merely on the basis of level of education, but also on the basis of nature and subject of the academic qualification, provided such distinction has a rational relation to the duties and responsibilities of the post. 75. The fact that an extension wing officer may possess substantial administrative experience or may have satisfactorily discharged the duties of a District Project Officer/Project Officer cannot by itself confer eligibility contrary to the rules. The wisdom of prescribing a particular technical qualification is a matter for the rule-making authority. 76. This court, while exercising judicial review, cannot substitute its own opinion regarding the qualification that ought to have been prescribed. 77. On a cumulative consideration of the scheme of the rules 2008 and the principles noticed hereinabove, we now summarise our decision as under: I. We are unable to hold that the prescription of an educational qualification for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and above is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. II. The classification is founded on an intelligible basis, namely, the possession of the educational qualification prescribed for the higher post, and the said qualification bears Page No.# 26/27 a rational nexus with the requirement of specialized knowledge and competence at that level. III. The mere fact that the two wings meet at the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer or that there may be some overlap in their functions or instances of transfer between them does not render such qualification constitutionally impermissible. IV. We are also unable to accept that the impugned provision amounts to discrimination, merely for the reason that its application results in rendering an officer in the Extension Wing ineligible for future promotion. The right of an employee is to be considered for promotion in accordance with the governing rules and not to claim promotion outside the eligibility conditions prescribed therein. V. A writ Court, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, cannot substitute its opinion as to what qualification ought to have been prescribed by the rule- making authority. VI. The petitioner having failed to show any material disclosing qualification to be manifestly arbitrary, irrational or wholly unrelated to the nature of the higher posts, we will not be justified to interfere with the impugned rules. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned provisions of Schedule II of the Rules 2008 fails. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. Interim order, Page No.# 27/27 if any, stands vacated. 78. Parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant