JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeks to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17-11-1972, (Annexure-K) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby respondents nos. 3 to 5 were promoted to the posts of Reader in the Engineering Colleges. The petitioner further seeks to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to review and revise the select list for the promotion to the posts of Reader. ( 2. ) THE petitioner is a Lecturer in Mathematics in Government Engineering College, Jabalpur. He was appointed on 29th August 1957 and his academic qualification was M. Sc. in Mathematics. Pursuant to the provisions of the M. P. Educational Service (Technical Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1957, published in M. P. Rajpatra, part IV (ga) dated 24-5-1968 (hereinafter referred to as Recruitment Rules), respondent No. 2, the Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting on 20-8-1971 and after considering the claims of respective candidates, prepared a list which included the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 5. The name of the petitioner was not considered by the said respondent No. 2, on the ground that he did not possess Ph. D. Degree. The select list prepared by respondent No. 2 was forwarded to the State Government and the State Government in turn forwarded it to the Public Service commission. Meanwhile, the petitioner was declared to be successful for ph. D. in Mathematics and he intimated this fact to the State Government on 21-12-1971. The petitioner also made certain representations to the State government to include his name in the select list, but no attention was paid to it and the impugned order (Annexure-K) was issued giving promotion to respondents Nos. 3 to 5 to the exclusion of the petitioner, who was senior to them. ( 3. ) IT is not disputed that the petitioner was senior to respondents Nos, 3 to 5. In the seniority list (Annexure-G) the name of the petitioner appears, at Serial No. 2, while the names of respondents 3 to 5 appear at Serial nos. 3, 7 and 15, respectively. It is also not disputed that the Departmental promotion Committee, who met on 20-8-1971, did not select the petitioner simply because he had not obtained the Ph. D. Degree by that time. 3, 7 and 15, respectively. It is also not disputed that the Departmental promotion Committee, who met on 20-8-1971, did not select the petitioner simply because he had not obtained the Ph. D. Degree by that time. But for this academic qualification, there was no other ground on which the petitioner could be superseded by respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Therefore, the short point. for consideration in this case is whether the Degree of Ph. D. in mathematics was a requisite qualification for selecting the names for promotion to the higher post from the employees working in the lower posts. ( 4. ) RULE 7 of the Recruitment Rules provides that after the commencement of these rules, recruitment to the service shall be by the following methods : (a) by direct recruitment by selection ; (b) by promotion of members of the Madhya Pradesh Educational service from lower post cadre to higher post cadre; and (c) by transfer of persons who hold in a substantive capacity such posts in such services as may be specified in this behalf. With respect to appointments by promotion, Rule 14 lays down that there shall be constituted a committee consisting of the members mentioned in Schedule IV for making a preliminary selection for promotion of eligible candidates. It is also provided that this committee shall meet at intervals, ordinarily, not exceeding one year. ( 5. ) THE important rule laying down conditions of eligibility for promotion is Rule 15, which reads thus:- "the Committee shall consider the cases of all persons who on the 1st day of July of that year, had completed at least 3 years of service (whether officiating or substantive) on the lower post for promotion to higher post as mentioned in column 2 of Schedule IV or any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the Government, subject to their fulfilling the minimum experience qualification for the promotion post wherever prescribed for direct recruitment to the promotion post. However, the Government may, at any time, modify this rule either wholly or partially in respect of any cadre for which such modification may, in their opinion, appear justified, by issuing a separate notification in this behalf. However, the Government may, at any time, modify this rule either wholly or partially in respect of any cadre for which such modification may, in their opinion, appear justified, by issuing a separate notification in this behalf. " According to the said rule, the Departmental Promotion Committee, while holding its meeting in a particular year, is required to consider the cases of all persons who on the 1st day of July in that year had completed 3 years of service on the lower post for promotion to higher post as mentioned in column 2 of Schedule IV, or any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the Government. While considering the cases of such persons, the departmental Promotion Committee is required to examine whether they have fulfilled the "minimum experience qualification" for the promotion post, wherever prescribed for direct recruitment to the promotion post. ( 6. ) IT may, however, be pointed out that in Schedule IV, below the last but one item relating to Women Polytechnic, Bhopal, a note is appended which reads thus : "for all the teaching posts the promotee will have to fulfil the academic qualifications prescribed for the promotion posts. " The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the aforesaid note the use of the word "promotee" presupposes that a person already promoted from a lower post to the higher post will, after getting the promotion, fulfil the academic qualifications prescribed for the promotion post. In our opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. It may be noted that Schedule IV relates to appointments by promotion from lower posts to higher posts. In this Schedule the above note has been appended. Therefore, the said note shall have to be read with Rule 15 regarding conditions of eligibility for promotion. In order to make a harmonious construction, the said note will have to be read as proviso to Rule 15 with respect to the teaching posts. The position which emerges from such a construction would be that for promotion from a lower post to a higher teaching post, the employee would not only be required to fulfil the minimum experience qualification but he will also be required to fulfil the academic qualifications prescribed for the promotion post. The academic qualification prescribed for Readers in Engineering colleges is given in column No. 5 of Schedule III, which is a Doctorate Degree in the subject. The academic qualification prescribed for Readers in Engineering colleges is given in column No. 5 of Schedule III, which is a Doctorate Degree in the subject. In this way, a direct recruit and a "promotee" to the higher post are kept at the same footing with respect to the teaching posts so far as conditions of eligibility are concerned. Such a scheme appears to be more constitutional as there is no discrimination on the ground of educational qualification between a direct recruit and a departmental promotee. In view of this aspect of the matter, we are of the view that the word "promotee" used in the note to Schedule IV is intended to be used for the person eligible for promotion. Therefore, to our reading of the note, the requirement to fulfil the academic qualifications is not post-promotion. In case the idea was that a person after getting promotion could fulfil the required academic qualifications, some scheme ought to have been framed for its implementation by making suitable provisions as to the period within which the academic qualification could be fulfilled and the consequences on failure to fulfil such a qualification within the prescribed time. No such scheme has been brought to our notice. Thus, keeping in view the present scheme envisaged in the schedules, the term "promotee" used in the note to Schedule IV could only mean prospective promotee, i. e. , a person claiming to be eligible for promotion from lower post to the higher post. As the petitioner did not fulfil educational qualification till 20-8-1971, on which date the Departmental promotion Committee held its meeting, his name was rightly excluded from the select list prepared by the said Committee on that date. ( 7. ) THE petitioner has filed copy of Memorandum No. 1292 /1651 /i (iii) /65 dated the 26th June 1965 (Annexure-L) received from Deputy Secretary to government, Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Department, addressed to all Heads of Departments, which is reproduced below :- "it has been observed that there is a notion prevailing among some appointing authorities that Government servants cannot be promoted to higher post unless they possess the minimum academic qualification prescribed for new appointees to that post. This is not correct. In the case of promotion, it is not always necessary to have the minimum academic qualifications as are prescribed for a direct recruit. This is not correct. In the case of promotion, it is not always necessary to have the minimum academic qualifications as are prescribed for a direct recruit. For example, if the minimum qualification prescribed is a bachelors degree for a particular post in regard to a direct recruit, this qualification will not be necessary for a promotee and the promotion, if due, should not be withheld simply for want of the academic qualification except in technical or specialised fields. A Government servant can of course be considered unfit for promotion for other reasons such as bad record etc. A Government servant should not in future be debarred from promotion merely because of lack of academic qualification as prescribed for new entrants for the post except in technical and specialised fields, where lack of academic qualification is considered to make the Government servant unfit for promotion. In short, academic qualifications will now be irrelevant for promotion except where lack of such qualifications makes the Government servant concerned unfit for the higher post. In such cases however promotion will be withheld not merely because of lack of academic qualifications but because of unfitness. " It may be noted that the Recruitment Rules have been framed subsequent to the above memorandum. That apart, once having held that the Recruitment Rules prescribe fulfilment of a particular educational qualification for promotion to higher post, the above memorandum shall not be of any use to the petitioner in this case. ( 8. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that the departmental Promotion Committee, which held its meeting on 20-8-1971, ought to have revised or reviewed the list prepared by it on that day, within a period of one year as contemplated by sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules. It is urged that had the Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting on or before 20-8-1972, it could have considered the name of the petitioner for selection, and giving due weight to his seniority, he could have been promoted along with respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Of course there was scope for such an eventuality. However, we are told that in the next meeting held by the Departmental Promotion Committee, petitioner was selected for promotion and consequently he has also been promoted to the post of Reader. 3 to 5. Of course there was scope for such an eventuality. However, we are told that in the next meeting held by the Departmental Promotion Committee, petitioner was selected for promotion and consequently he has also been promoted to the post of Reader. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner simply ventilates the grievance as regards the seniority which may be claimed by the petitioner in the higher post to which he has been promoted. In this connection, it may be observed that it is still open to the petitioner to make representations for giving him due seniority at the time of his confirmation on the post of his promotion and the concerned authorities would be free to consider them in the light of the above contention made on behalf of the petitioner. However, for the reasons already stated earlier, and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has already been promoted, the impugned order and the select list need not be quashed. ( 9. ) THIS petition, therefore, fails and it is hereby dismissed accordingly. Looking to the facts of the case parties to bear their own costs as incurred. The security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.