JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ order or direction restraining respondents No. 1 to 3 from making promotion of respondents No. 4 to 7 on the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari and further to direct respondents No. 2 and 3 to promote the petitioner on the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is B &. LL. B. He was appointed in the Government' service on 6th July, 1959 He is presently working on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar since 25th May, 1975 in the Department of Vidhi Rachna Sanghathan after due promotion from different posts. Respondents No. 4, 6 and 7 are Varishtha Rachnakar and respondent No. 3 who was working on the post of Varishtha Rachnakar has retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 21st Nov. 1987. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 4 Kamalakar Phadke is B. Corm Shyam Behari Sharma, respondent No. 6 is matriculate only and Prem Shankar Matbur respondent No. 7 is also matriculate. After joining Government service in the year 1959. the petitioner was appointed temporarily on the post of Vidhi Rachnakar vide order dated 14th May, 1971 and was confirmed on the said post on 19th July, 1976. A seniority list of permanent Vidhi Rachnakar was issued on or about 18th June, 1979, wherein the petitioner was shown junior to respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 and senior to respondent No. 7 The petitioner was later on confirmed on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar vide order dated 12th Nov. 1982 and a seniority list of Varistha Vidhi Rachnakar was also issued on 15th March, 1983. in which the name of the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 7 above the name of respondent No. 7 and below the names of respondents No 4, 5 and 6. In the year 1981, Raj Vidhi Rachna Service Rules, 1981 were framed and published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Extra-ordinary dated 14th August, 1981 (for short, the Rules). It prescribes method of recruitment, qualification for direct recruitment and promotion to the higher post, which is as follows:-(on next page). 3. In the year 1981, Raj Vidhi Rachna Service Rules, 1981 were framed and published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Extra-ordinary dated 14th August, 1981 (for short, the Rules). It prescribes method of recruitment, qualification for direct recruitment and promotion to the higher post, which is as follows:-(on next page). 3. From the above-mentioned schedule which is appended to the said Rules, it is clear that the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar is by 100% promotion from Vidhi Rachnakar and Vidhi Rachna Adhikari and Deputy Secretary Vidhi Rachna Sangathan are also promotional post. It is also clear that the post of Vidhi Rachnakar is by 100% direct recruitment. It is also clear from the Schedule I that the minimum qualification for the post of Vidhi Rachnakar is Law Graduate and with five years' experience on the post of Vidhi Rachnakar an employee is qualified for promotion on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar and similarly with five years' service on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar an employee qualifies for the promotion to the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari. Rule 28 of the said Rules provides for procedure for appointment by promotion. Rule 6 prescribes methods of recruitment and rule 17 prescribes procedure for direct recruitment. The constitution of the service has provided under Rule 5 of the said Rules. It provides as follows : "5. Rule 28 of the said Rules provides for procedure for appointment by promotion. Rule 6 prescribes methods of recruitment and rule 17 prescribes procedure for direct recruitment. The constitution of the service has provided under Rule 5 of the said Rules. It provides as follows : "5. Constitution of service:-The Service shall consist of : (a) all persons holding substantively the posts specified in Schedule-I on the date of commencement of these rules; (b) all persons recruited to the posts included in the Service before the commencement of these rules; and S.No. Name of the post Method of recruitment Qualifications for direct recruitment Post from which promotion is to be made Experience for promotion Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Deputy Secretary Vidhi Rachna Sangathan 100% by promotion - Vidhi Rachna Adhikari 5 years' service on the post mentioned in column 5 - 2 Vidhi Rachna Adhikari -100% by promotion - Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar 5 years' service on the post mentioned in column 5 - 3 Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar -1000% by promotion - Vidhi Rachnakar 5 years' service on the post mentioned in column 5 - 4 Vidhi Rachnakat 100% by direct recruitment Must be a law Graduate (2 years course under the old scheme and 3 years course under the new Scheme or a Bachelor of Law Professional) of a University established by Law in India. SCHEDULE-1 (c) all persons recruited to the Service in accordance with the provisions of these rules and in accordance with the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970, except urgent temporary appointment under rule 30." 4. Prior to the framing of the Rules, there was a Department of Translation in the Secretariat under the Law Department, which used to translate different Acts and Laws and their services as translator were governed by the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970 (for short, the rules of 1970). Under the said Rules of 1970, Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar was by 100% promotion from Vidhi Rachnakar or the translator, whereas the post of Vidhi Rachnakar translator was by 100% direct recruitment, and the minimum qualification prescribed for this post was also Law Graduate from any University recognised by the, State Government. Under the said Rules of 1970, Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar was by 100% promotion from Vidhi Rachnakar or the translator, whereas the post of Vidhi Rachnakar translator was by 100% direct recruitment, and the minimum qualification prescribed for this post was also Law Graduate from any University recognised by the, State Government. The case of the petitioner is that for the post of Vidhi Rachnakar, the minimum qualification prescribed for the post was Law Graduate and, with-out Law Graduation an employee working on the post of Vidhi Rachnakar can not be promoted on the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari or higher post only on the basis of five years' experience The submission of the petitioner is that respondents No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not Law Graduate and, as such they do not qualify for the post of promotion either on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar or on the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari, even if they may be having five years' experience. The petitioner has further submitted that one post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari has fallen vacant since 1st August, 1984 and three posts of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari are also to be filled in by promotion from amongst Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar, for which DPC has been held. In spite of several representations by the petitioner, respondents No. 1 to 3 have considered respondents No. 4 to 7 for promotion on the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari, excluding the petitioner for promotion for the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari. It is, thus, contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that the action of respondents No. 1 to 3 is highly arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice in keeping away the petitioner from consideration. 5. A notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted. Notices were served on the respondents. The respondents have Fled a reply. In the reply, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Government Secretariat on 6th July, 1959. 5. A notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted. Notices were served on the respondents. The respondents have Fled a reply. In the reply, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Government Secretariat on 6th July, 1959. At that time, the petitioner was only a graduate Subsequently, with the permission the Department he passed LL.B. degree in the year 1974, and on the recommendation of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Translator/ Vidhi Rachnakar and was subsequently promoted as Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar with effect from 24th May, 1974. Later on, he was confirmed on the post of Vasishatha Vidhi Rachnakar with effect from 12th November, 1982. It is contended that Shyam Behari Sharma is a Graduate in Arts. The case of the respondent is that as per the requirement of Rules of 1981, the qualification of law Graduation is only for direct recruitment to the cadre of Vidhi Rachnakar. The method of recruitment to this cadre is 100% by direct recruitment, but for other three cadres-Deputy Secretary, Vidhi Rachna Adhikari and Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar the method of recruitment is 100% by promotion and the Rules do not require that the person sought to be appointed by promotion to any of these cadres should possess the degree of graduation. Any member of the lower grade may be appointed to the next higher cadre provided he is otherwise qualified for such promotion namely if he possesses experience of five years in the nex lower cadre and the same was the position in the Rules of 1970. Th e Schedule referred to above requires possession of experience of five years in the next lower cadre. It is submitted by the respondents No. 4 to 7 secured promotion under the Rules of 1970. The respondents have also contended that respondents No. 4 to 7 were all promoted much before the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar with effect from 24 May, 1979, but he did not challenge the promotion of respondents No. 4 to 7. The respondents have also contended that respondents No. 4 to 7 were all promoted much before the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar with effect from 24 May, 1979, but he did not challenge the promotion of respondents No. 4 to 7. The submission of the respondents further is that presently there is no post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari vacant in the Department as the same has been filled in by appointing the incumbent through promotion from the next lower cadre. Since the petitioner did not qualify for promotion as per the Rules, he could not have been promoted. At the time, when the other incumbents were promoted, the petitioner did not qualify himself to be so promoted on the basis of experience. It is further mention d by the respondents that respondents No 4 and 5 were promoted on the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari along with two others in the year 1985 and at that time, the petitioner did not possess the requisite experience. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder. 6. Shri Virendra Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that respondents No. 4 to 7 were not qualified to be promoted on the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari as they were not possessing the degree of Law Graduation and since the petitioner was the only person who was Law Graduate he should have been considered for the promotion to the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari. 7. While, on the other hand, Shri O.P. Sharma, learned Addl. Government Advocate, has submitted that the contention of the petitioner is not correct. His main contention is that for considering the promotion, qualification as prescribed in Item No. 6 of the Schedule 1 appended to the Rules of 1981, is required to be seen. Since respondents No. 4 to 6 were having the requisite experience of five years' service on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar, therefore, they were found eligible for promotion to the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective sub-mission made by the learned counsel for the parties. Since respondents No. 4 to 6 were having the requisite experience of five years' service on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar, therefore, they were found eligible for promotion to the post of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective sub-mission made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that respondent No. 4 Kamlakar Phadke was made permanent Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar on 5th April, 1976; Rameshwar Dayal on 5th July, 1978 and Shyam Behari Sharma on 4th October, 1978 and the petitioner was made Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar on 25th May, 1979. It is also true that the seniority list of Vidhi Rachnakar was published on 18th June, 1979 and the seniority list of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar was published on 15th March, 1983. It is also true that the petitioner at no time challenged the promotion of respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 when they were promoted on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar from the post of Vidhi Rachnakar. It is for the first time in the year 1984 that the petitioner made some representations. From the Rules and particularly Schedule-I, to the Rules, it is clear that the post of Vidhi Rachnakar can be filled in 100% by direct recruitment. which prescribes that the candidates should be a Law Graduate. But the posts of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar, Vidhi Rachna Adhikari and Deputy Secretary, Vidhi Rachna Sangathan are required to be filled in 100% by promotion which prescribes experience for promotion of five years' service on the next lower post. The qualification of graduation is thus required only when direct recruitment is made on the post of Vidhi Rachnakar. In this writ petition, the petitioner has not challenge the promotion of respondents No. 4 to 6 on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar or the appointment on the post of Vidhi Rachnakar on the ground that they had no degree of Law Graduation because the petitioner could not have done so as the petitioner him self was appointed as temporary Vidhi Rachnakar on 24th May, 1977 when he himself was not a Law Graduate. He passed LL B. examination in the year 1914 and was subsequently promoted as Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar with effect from 24th May, 1979, while the other respondents were already working on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar. He passed LL B. examination in the year 1914 and was subsequently promoted as Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar with effect from 24th May, 1979, while the other respondents were already working on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar. Thus, the only controversy that it remains is whether for promotion to the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar or Vidhi Rachna Adhikari or Deputy Secretary, Vidhi Rachna Sangathan, is it incumbent on the candidate to be a Law Graduate or not. In our opinion, the degree of Law Graduation is needed only for recruitment to the post of Vidhi Rachnakar as per the Rules of 1981, but for promotion five years' experience as Vidhi Rachnakar is needed. Similarly, for promotion of Vidhi Rachna Adhikari, experience on the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar is needed. It is not denied that respondents No. 4 to 6 were having the experience of the post of Varishtha Vidhi Rachnakar for a period of five years or so. The contention of Shri Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner that even for promotion, qualification of Law Graduation is needed, is not supported by the interpretation of the Rules or Schedule I and, further the promotion made in the year 1976 and 1978 cannot be allowed to be challenged after a lapse of more than five years. We, thus, find no infirmity in giving promotion to the respondents. 9. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******