JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed: (1) that the order (Ex.4) of promotion dated December 23, 1971 may be quashed, (2) that respondents Nos. 2 to 7 may be removed from the office of Executive Engineer, (3) that respondent No. 1 may be directed not to make any promotion to the post of the Executive Engineer without considering the name of the petitioner, and (4) that a writ of mandamus ma' be issued to categorise the position of Executive Engineer and to determine its strength as required by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Service of Engineers Regulations, 1969 (for short 'the Regulations' hereafter). 2. The petitioner passed B E. (Tele-Communication) from the Birla College of Engineering. Pilani in the year 1961. He was appointed as Junior Engineer by order dated March 1, 1962 by the Chief Engineer-cum-Technical Member of the Rajasthan Electricity Board (which will hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, be referred to as 'the Board'). He joined the said post on March 14, 1962. The appointment was on temporary basis. Subsequently, he was temporarily promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer by order elated November 15, 1962 of the Chief Engineer-cum-Technical Member of the Board. The Board, by its order dated September 17, 1964, approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee and regularised the promotion of 50 Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers. The petitioner, thus. stood confirmed and his name was shown at serial No. 14. The petitioner has filed the order of confirmation marked as Ex 2. The combined final seniority list of Assistant Engineers approved by the Board was published on September 1, 1970 and the petitioner's name was mentioned at serial No. 76 in the list (Ex. 3) The petitioner has stated that he was neither appointed as junior Engineer (Tele-Communication) nor was he promoted as Assistant Engineer (Tele-Communication). The petitioner met the Deputy Secretary (Establishment) of the Board on August 21, 1971 and at that time he was told that his name could not be considered for promotion for the post of Executive Engineer as his qualification wan B.E. (Tele-Communication) and that he is only eligible to be considered when the post of Executive Engineer (Tele Communication) is created. Thereafter, a representation was submitted on September 24, 1971. Thereafter, a representation was submitted on September 24, 1971. It is said that that representation was not heeded to and the Chairman of the Board, by his order dated December 23, 1971 promoted 11 Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive Engineers. The order of the promotion has been filed by the petitioner marked as Ex. 4 After passing of the order dated December 23, 1971, the petitioner sought interview with the Chairman of the Board and requested for promotion, but he was informed that his name was not considered for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer as he was B.E. (Tele-Communication). Thereafter, another representation was submitted on December 31, 1971. A fresh representation was submitted on January 5, 1972 through his advocate by the petitioner, but no reply was received by him. Though the representations were pending before the Chairman, he promoted respondent No. 6 as Executive Engineer on an ad hoc basis for eight months in January 1972, who was much junior to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that his name was not considered for promotion while promoting respondent No. 6 to the post of Executive Engineer. It is stated by the petitioner that for seeking justice, he met the Chairman on April 30, 1972 and told him that the Assistant Engineers junior to him were being given ad hoc promotions and his case is not even being considered. The Chairman of the Board, according to the petitioner, refused to reconsider the matter and told him that unless the post of Executive Engineer (Tele- Communication) is created, he could not be promoted. The petitioner has challenged the ad hoc promotions on various grounds and he has prayed for the reliefs mentioned here in above. 3. The principal defence is that the matter of the petitioner was long considered & he was apprised that he could not be considered for the post of Executive Engineer because he did not fulfil the requisite qualification, & that he could only be considered for the post of Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication) when ever it falls vacant subject to the fulfilment of the other conditions necessary for the post. It was also averred that the ad hoc promotions to respondents Nos 2 to 10 were perfectly in accordance with the Regulations as they were eligible for promotion to the post of Executive, Engineers. It was also averred that the ad hoc promotions to respondents Nos 2 to 10 were perfectly in accordance with the Regulations as they were eligible for promotion to the post of Executive, Engineers. The petitioner submitted a rejoinder and additional rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent No. 1. In the additional rejoinder, it was, inter alia, prayed that the orders dated May 14, 1973 and May 26, 1973 may be quashed. 4. I have heard Mr. Dalpat Raj Bhandari, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H.P Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 at some length. No body appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 10. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the combined seniority list (Ex 3). Shri R.R. Gupta, respondent No.2, V.K. Raj, respondent No.3, Shri V.K. Gupta, respondent No.4, Shri S.L. Rai, respondent No.7 and Shri G S. Rathore, respondent No.5 were much junior to him, that respondent No.6 was also much junior to him as his name appears at serial No.83 in the combined seniority list (Ex.3), that respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are diploma holders in Mechanical and did not hold any diploma of any Electrical branch, but they too were promoted by the order Ex 4 to the post of Executive Engineers (Electrical branch) and that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as he possessed five year's experience as Assistant Engineer, as required by the Regulations and is also degree-holder. In support of his arguments, learned counsel referred to Dr. Surendra Kumar Pande v. State of Rajasthan, 1969 RLW 568 , Viney Kumar Mojoo v. State and others ILR (1959) IX Raj. 547 and State of Mysore v. Krishna Murthy, AIR 173 SC 1146 On the other hand, Mr Gupta strenuously urged that the petitioner was not at all eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, to which only persons having a Degree or Diploma in Electrical or Mechanical Engineering are eligible. 6. Here, reference may be made to the relevant provisions of the Regulations, which were in force at the relevant time. Regulation 3(f) defines 'Member of Service' Part VI of the Regulations deals with qualification and procedure for recruitment to the service by promotion. Part VII thereof, provides for qualification and procedure for appointment to senior posts. 6. Here, reference may be made to the relevant provisions of the Regulations, which were in force at the relevant time. Regulation 3(f) defines 'Member of Service' Part VI of the Regulations deals with qualification and procedure for recruitment to the service by promotion. Part VII thereof, provides for qualification and procedure for appointment to senior posts. Regulation 23(2) reads as under: "(2) Appointment to the post of Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer (permanent or in a officiating/temporary capacity) shall be made on the basis of seniority. cum-merit from amongst the members of the Service possessing the qualifications and length of service as mentioned in Schedule I on the recommendation of the Committee." Regulation 24 provides for procedure for selection. Regulation 24(3) is as under: "(3) In selecting candidates for promotion, regard shall be had to their: a) Seniority. b) Academic qualifications & experience. c) Tact initiative & energy. d) Intelligence and ability. e) Character including integrity. f) Previous record of service." Regulation 26 deals with officiating appointments. According to Regulation 26(2), in making all officiating appointments due regard was to be kept of the seniority of the officer to be so appointed and in special circumstances, appointments could also be made without prejudice to the seniority of the others. It will be seen from Regulation 23(2) that appointment to the post of Executive Engineer (permanent or in an officiating/temporary capacity) was to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the members of the service possessing the qualifications and length of service as mentioned in Schedule I on the recommendation of the Committee. Relevant items of Schedule I are: Post from which selection is to be made Qualification and experience for promotion. 4. Assistant Engineer (Electrical) B E. (Electrical) or AMIE (Electrical) or qualification declared equivalent by Govt. with 5 years experience as Asstt. Engineer Electric) or if diploma holder from recognised institution 12 years service as Asstt. Engineer (Electrical). 5. Assistant Engineer (Electrical) B.E. (Mechanical) or AMIE (Mechanical) or qualification declared equivalent by Govt. with 5 years experience as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) or if Diploma Holder from recognised institution 12 years service as Asstt. Engineer (Mechanical). 6 Asst. Engineer (Tele-Communication) B.E. (Tele communication) or A.M.I.E. (Tele-communication) or qualification declared equivalent by Govt. with 5 years experience as Assistant Engineer (Tele-communication) or if Diploma Holder from recognised institution 12 years service as Assistant Engineer (Tele-communication). 7. Asstt. Engineer (Mechanical). 6 Asst. Engineer (Tele-Communication) B.E. (Tele communication) or A.M.I.E. (Tele-communication) or qualification declared equivalent by Govt. with 5 years experience as Assistant Engineer (Tele-communication) or if Diploma Holder from recognised institution 12 years service as Assistant Engineer (Tele-communication). 7. Asstt. Engineer (Civil) B.E. (Civil) or A.M.I.E. (Civil) or qualification declared equivalent by Govt. with 5 years experience as Assistant Engineer (Civil) or if Diploma Holder from recognised institution,, 12 years service as Assistant Engineer (Civil)." It is not in dispute that the petitioner dues not possess the qualifications prescribed for Executive Engineer (Electrical) or Executive Engineer (Mechanical) though he has five years' experience as an Assistant Engineer. It is true that so far as the condition of five years' experience as Assistant Engineer is concerned, the petitioner fulfilled that when the order (Ex 4) for promotion was passed, but that alone could not make him eligible (or the promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical or Mechanical) unless he possessed the qualifications, which were necessary for the appointment of the Executive Engineer (Electrical or Mechanical), the petitioner neither possessed the qualifications of B E. (Electrical or Mechanical) nor of A.M.I.E. (Electrical or Mechanical) nor is diploma holder from recognised institution nor has he 12 years' service as Assistant Engineer (Electrical or Mechanical) so as to entitle him for the appointment as Executive Engineer (Electrical or Mechanical). It is, thus, clear that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications for being appointed as Executive Engineer (Electrical and/or Mechanical). Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 possessed the qualifications required for being appointed as Executive Engineers (Electrical or Mechanical). 7. Respondents Not. 8 to 10 are senior to the petitioner as is clear from the combined seniority list (Appendix B) appended to Ex.3. The name of the petitioner has been shown at serial No.76, where as respondents Not. 8, 9 and 10 have been shown at serial Not. 70, 71 and 73 respectively. According to clauses (4) and (5) of Schedule 1, a person, who is diploma holder from recognised institution and has 12 years' service as Assistant Engineer (Electrical or Mechanical), is eligible for being appointed as Executive Engineer (Electrical or Mechanical) respectively. The petitioner, in para 20A of the writ petition, has stated that respondents Nos. 70, 71 and 73 respectively. According to clauses (4) and (5) of Schedule 1, a person, who is diploma holder from recognised institution and has 12 years' service as Assistant Engineer (Electrical or Mechanical), is eligible for being appointed as Executive Engineer (Electrical or Mechanical) respectively. The petitioner, in para 20A of the writ petition, has stated that respondents Nos. 8,9 and 10 are diploma holders in Mechanical and they did not hold any diploma in Electrical Branch and that they have been promoted by the order (Ex 4) to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical Branch). In the order (Ex 4) dated December 23, 1971, it is only mentioned that the Chairman of the Board has promoted the Assistant Engineers, whose names are mentioned in it (Ex 4). From the order (Ex 4), it cannot be said that respondents Not. 8 to 10 were promoted as Executive Engineers (Electrical). The case of the Board (respondent No. 1) is that there are no posts like Executive Engineers (Electrical Branch) and Executive Engineers (Mechanical Branch). The only segregation is regarding the posts of Executive Engineers (Tile-communication) and Executive Engineers (Civil). According to the Board, so far as the Executive Engineers (Tele-communication) and Executive Engineers (Civil) are concerned, they are one and all persons holding a degree or diploma in Mechanical Engineering with requisite experience are eligible for promotion as Executive Engineers. Thus, the version of the Board is that for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) only persons holding degree or diploma in Civil Engineering could only be appointed and so is the case with the rest of Executive Engineers (Tele-communication) and on this post persons holding a degree in Tele-communication or other equivalent qualifications can only be appointed. To quote from the reply, the case of the Board is: "It may, therefore, be submitted that the posts of Executive Engineers are not divided into Electrical or Mechanical Branches, but all Executive Engineers except (Tele-Communication) and (Civil) form one cadre." Be that as it may, as the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications for being appointed as Executive Engineer (Electrical or Mechanical) under the Regulations, he could not be appointed as such. 8. 8. In Vineykumar's case (2), it was held that the State was duty bound to accord equal treatment to all those who were similarly circumstanced and if it did not formulate any principle for retrenching some of the workmen in a particular category while not retrenching others, that also violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In Dr. Surendra Kumar's case (1). Rule 5 (1) (i) of the Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules came up for consideration. In that case it was held, "Term 'lecturer' includes lecturer to clinical as well as in non-clinical subject." In State of Mysore's case (3), it was observed : "If, on the facts of a particular case, the classes to be considered are really different, inequality of opportunity in promotional chances may be justifiable. On the contrary, if the facts of a particular case disclose no such rational distinction between members of what is found to be really a single class no class distinction can be made in selecting the best Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution must held to be violated when members of one class are not even considered for promotion. The case before us falls, in our opinion, in the latter type of cases where the difference in promotional opportunities of those who were wrongly divided into two classes for this purpose only could not be justified on any rational grounds. Learned Counsel for the State was unable to indicate any such ground to us. We, therefore, think that the Mysore High Court rightly held that the impugned notifications were unconstitutional." I have not been able to appreciate the relevancy of the aforesaid decisions to the present case. As the petitioner belonged to a different branch viz. Tele-communication, he was not qualified to be appointed as Executive Engineer (Electrical or Mechanical) and as such he was not promoted. The promotion of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 to the post of Executive Engineers, was rightly made. 9. Now, I take up the case of respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10. The petitioner has challenged their promotions to the post of Executive Engineers. According to the petitioner, respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are diploma holders in mechanical and they do not hold any diploma or degree in electrical branch. The petitioner has stated that by the order (Ex. 8, 9 and 10. The petitioner has challenged their promotions to the post of Executive Engineers. According to the petitioner, respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are diploma holders in mechanical and they do not hold any diploma or degree in electrical branch. The petitioner has stated that by the order (Ex. 4), they have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineers (Electrical Branch). The case of the petitioner, further, is that there was no categorisation for the post of Executive Engineer, but looking to the nature of the duties, the post on which respondents Nos 8 to 10 were promoted could be classified as electrical only and no mechanical duty was allotted to them while working as Executive Engineers. 10. A perusal of the combined seniority list (Ex 3) shows that respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are at serial Nos. 70, 71 & 73 respectively. The petitioner is at serial No. 76 and, therefore, he is junior to them. In Ex. 4, it is mentioned that along with others, respondents Nos. 8 9 and 10, who were Assistant Engineers, were promoted as officiating Executive Engineer, on ad hoc basis for a period of 8 months with immediate effect. It is specifically mentioned therein that the promotion shall be without prejudice to any, body's claim on the ground of seniority. From Ex 4, it cannot be said that the promotions of respondents Nos 8, 9 and 10 were to the post of Executive Engineers (Electrical or Executive Engineers (Mechanical). The petitioner does not possess the qualifications prescribed for being promoted as Executive Engineers (Electrical) or Executive Engineer (Mechanical), prescribed by Regulation 23 of the Regulations. It may he recalled here that Regulation 23(2), inter alia, provides that appointment to the post of Executive Engineer (permanent or in officiating/temporary capacity) should be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the members of the service possessing the qualifications and length of service as mentioned in Schedule I of the Regulations en the recommendation of the Committee. Thus, the conditions for toe promotion to the post of Executive Engineer are: (1) seniority-cum-merit; and (2) possession of qualification and length of service as mentioned in Schedule I. The petitioner is not senior to respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10. The petitioner did not possess the qualifications prescribed as mentioned in the Schedule I as ire is a graduate in Tele-communication. 8, 9 and 10. The petitioner did not possess the qualifications prescribed as mentioned in the Schedule I as ire is a graduate in Tele-communication. The petitioner only possesses the qualification B.E. (Tele-communication) and only eligible for being considered for the post of Executive Engineer (Tele-communication). As the petitioner does not possess the qualifications mentioned in Schedule I, appended to the Regulations, he can not complain about the promotion of respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed considerable reliance on a decision of a learned single Judge in Prakash Chandra res. R S E B. (4). I have carefully gone through this decision. In that case, the petitioner had challenged the validity of the advertisement dated August 5, 1978, inviting the applications for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as well as competitive examination, which was held from December 24, 1978 to December 29, 1978, in put source of the said advertisement. The learned Judge took the view that a junior Engineer/Overseer holding a diploma in Mechanical Engineering is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and Junior Engineers/Overseers having diploma in Mechanical Engineering Were entitled to. compete for the appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the direct recruitment quota and the impugned advertisement, so far as it restricted the field for eligibility to junior Engineers having diploma in Electrical Engineering only was issued in contravention of the Regulations as modified by the Circular dated April 1, 1978, issued by the respondent Board. It was contended in that case by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Regulations, a person holding a degree in Mechanical Engineering was entitled for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer involving supervision of the work of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and that there was no rational basis for denying to a Junior Engineer/Overseer holding a diploma in mechanical engineering, the right to be appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). In view of the finding to which he arrived at, the learned single judge observed that the cause of discrimination does not exist and, therefore, it was not necessary to deal with the point of discrimination. In view of the finding to which he arrived at, the learned single judge observed that the cause of discrimination does not exist and, therefore, it was not necessary to deal with the point of discrimination. The third contention faised in that case was that the petitioner was picked out for discriminatory treatment in as much as number of junior Engineers having diploma in Mechanical Engineering were promoted to appear at the competitive examination held from December 24, 1978 to December 29, 1978, and the petitioner in that case who was a person similarly situated was denied such an opportunity to appear at the competitive examination. The learned judge held that the petitioner could legitimately urge that in permitting the other junior Engineers having diploma in Mechanical Engineering to appear at the competitive examination but in refusing to grant such a permission to the petitioner, the respondent Board had denied to the petitioner the equality of opportunity in the matter of employment and has contravened Art 16 of the Constitution. I am unable to see how the decision in Prakash Advani's case (4) assists the petitioner, for, being appointed as Executive Engineer, the petitioner has to fulfil the conditions laid down in Regulation 23(2) as stated above. The petitioner is neither senior to respondents Not. 8 to 10 nor does he possess the qualifications mentioned in Schedule I, appended to the Regulations and, therefore, he is not entitled to make any grievance against the temporary promotion of respondents Nos. 8 to 10 as Officiating Executive Engineers on ad hoc basis. 11. For that reasons mentioned above, no case for quashing the order (Ex-4) dated December 23, 1971, is made out. 12. The result is that this writ petition has no force and it is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ dismissed. *******