BY THE COURT - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the entry "Welder" in Col. No.4 of items No.15 of the Schedule annexed to the Rajasthan Ground Water (Subordinate Service) Rules, 1973 (for short the Rules) and has prayed that this entry be declared invalid being discriminatory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution as by making Welder eligible for appointment by promotion along with Mechanic Gr.II to the post of Mechanic Gr. I has affected the right of the petitioner and like others adversely. 2. Mr. M. Mridul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that there is difference in pay-scales, qualifications and nature of duties between the posts of Mechanic Gr. II and the Welder. He has submitted that as per item No.15 of the Schedule annexes to the Rules, 75% posts are to be filed in by promotion from amongst the Mechanic Gr.II over welders who possess 5 years experience on the post and are literate and 25% posts of Mechanic Gr.I are to be filed in by direct recruitment from amongst to be filled in by direct recruitment from amongst the Welders, who possess diploma in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering with one years practical experience in repairing of Petrol and Diesel Machines. According to him, clubbing of two posts of Welder and Mechanic Gr.II for promotion to the post of Mechanic Gr. I is arbitrary. He has submitted that the pay scales for the post of Mechanic Gr.II is higher than of a Welder, which is clear from the Schedule appended to the writ petition. The qualifications required for the post of Mechanic Gr. II is more onerous than those required for the post of Welder, for which he has drawn our attention to Annexure-R. showing the minimum qualification for the posts of Mechanic Gr. II and the Welder. So far as his submission, regarding difference in nature of duties is concerned, he has submitted that duty of the Mechanic Gr.II is to repair Rigs, Internal Combustion and all allied machines such as air compressor, welding set. Gen. set etc. whereas the duty of the Welder is only to eld the necessary joints or plates according to the machine device. He has, there fore, submitted that stubbing of theses two posts of Mechanic Gr. II and the Welder for promotion to the post of Mechanic Gr. Gen. set etc. whereas the duty of the Welder is only to eld the necessary joints or plates according to the machine device. He has, there fore, submitted that stubbing of theses two posts of Mechanic Gr. II and the Welder for promotion to the post of Mechanic Gr. I is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In this respect, he drew our attention to the letter Annexure-2 dated 21.2.1985 and the letter Annexure-3 dated 20.4 1995 where in it has been stated that for promotion to the post of Mechanic Gr.I, the clubbing of two posts viz., Welders and Mechanic Gr.II was not proper and hence, the Chief Engineer has recommended for its reconsideration to he State Govt. 3. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that difference in pay scales of the posts of Welder and Mechanic Gr.II is too meagre and unsubstantial and hence, it cannot be a decisive factor to hold the clubbing of these two posts Of Mechanic Gr. II and Welder for promotion to the post of Mechanic Gr. I as invalid and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It this respect, he invited our attention to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in A.S. Iyer & Vs. Balasubramanyam & Ors. (1980 SCC (L&S)-145. 4. We have given our most anxious consideration to the rival contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Now, we will have to determine whether it is a case of unequal being treated as equals and accordingly, whether the entry Welder" in col. No. 4 of item No.15 of the Schedule annexed to the Rules has to be deleted as being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 Constitution ? 6. In Mohd. Usman V. State of A.P. (1), their lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that the proposition of law that the doctrine of equality is attracted not only when equals are treated as unequal but also when unequal are treated as equals and that Art. 14 is offended both by a finding difference when there is none and by making no difference when there is one is unexceptionable, But the rule of equality is intended to advance justice by avoiding discrimination. 7. 7. On the strength of the aforesaid proposition of law enunciated by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Usmans case (supra), we will examine the facts of the case and the law which has been cited by both the learned counsel. 8. The contention of Mr. Mridul is that in that in this case, the pay scales of Mechanic Gr. II is higher to that of a Welder. He has further submitted that a Welder who is promoted from the post of Fitter gets his promotion on the post of Mechanic Gr. I on expiry of 8 years whereas a Mechanic Gr. II who is promoted from the post of Fitter gets his promotion on the post of Mechanic Gr.I on expiry of ten years. He has also submitted that the Job requirements for the post of Mechanic Gr.I also very much differ when compared to job requirement of the post of a Welder. The post of Welder has no nexus with the job that he will have to perform as Mechanic Gr.I and thus, it is a case of treating unequal as equals. 9. So far as difference in pay scales is concerned, Mr. M.R. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that it is not a decisive factor, In this respect, he our attention to a special Bench decision of this Court in Amarchand V. State of Rajasthan (2). That was a case where for promotion to the post of Head Master, Senior Teachers and Teachers Gr.II were made eligible in the ratio of 1:4. It was alleged that for becoming a senior Teacher, one has to pass post-Graduation examination with a degree of Bachelor of Education whereas for the post of second Grade Teacher, one has to pass Graduation examination with a degree of Bachelor of Education. In that case, it was argued by Mr. Mridul that a Senior Teacher definitely places himself in superior category in that way and, therefore, he cannot be equalised in the matter of selection to the post of a Head Master with a second Grade Teacher, who in matters of salary and educational qualification stands inferior to the former class, while relying on Mohd, Usmans case (supra) and the decision in Naval Kishore Singh V. U.O.I.(3), It was held that the difference in pay scales and educational qualification cannot be treated as decisive in such matters. 10. As the Judgment of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Usmans case was the bed-rock in arriving at a particular conclusion in Amarchands case (supra) and Nawalkishore Singhs case (supra), it will be better to discuss in detail Mohd. Usmans case (supra). 11. Mohd. Usmans case related to the recruitment to a state cadre post of Sub Registrar from amongst the Ministerial Officials of the Registration and Stamps Department. R.5 related to the qualifications and it provided that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the post Sub Registrar Gr.II unless he is permanent clerk and must have served for a period of not less than 7 years on duty as clerk in the Registration and Stamps Department including the office of the Rajasthan General of Birth, Death and Marriages and the office of the Registrar of Firms. By insertion of these qualifications, the L.D.Cs. and the U.D.Cs. have been clubbed together. It was contended that the U.D.C. is a promotional post from the post of L.D.C. and, therefore, it is case of treating unequal as equals and it is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 12. This argument was repelled by their lordships of the Supreme Court and it was observed as follows:- If the State had treated the U.D.Cs. as being superior to the L.D.Cs. for the purpose of that recruitment, it would have resulted in a great deal of injustice to a large section of the Clerks The fortuitous circumstance of an Officer in a particular district becoming an U.D.C. would have given him an undue advantage over his seniors who might have been as efficient or even more efficient than himself merely because they chanced to serve in some other district". It was further observed as follows:- For the reasons mentioned above, we do not think that in the present case, the state can be said to have treated unequal as equals the rule of equality is intended to advance justice by avoiding discrimination. In our opinion, the High Court by overlooking the reason behind r.5 came to the erroneous conclusion that the said rule violated Article 14 of the Constitution". 13. In our opinion, the High Court by overlooking the reason behind r.5 came to the erroneous conclusion that the said rule violated Article 14 of the Constitution". 13. In this case, the clubbing was allowed because promotion of a L.D.C. to the post of U.D.C. which forms Part of a district cadre could be a fortuitous circumstance i.e. in one district, a L.D.C. may be promoted to the post of U.D.C. within 5 years whereas in another district a L.D.C. may be promoted to the post of U.D.C. within 15 years inspite of the fact that he has been very much competent and efficient. Apart from that there were certain qualification for recruitment to the aforesaid post of Sub Registrar Gr.II and those common qualifications were that he" must have passed Registration test whether he is a L.D.C. or U.D.C. He & must have taken at the final examination of his school or college course one of the languages mentioned in the rule and must have also passed translation test or second language test etc. Thus, it was in those circumstances, it was held that the clubbing of thses two posts will not be discriminatory. Thus, Mohd, Usmans case is very much distinguishable on facts of the present case. Here, the cadre to which promotion is made is not a State cadre post and the promotion of a helper to the post Mechanic Gr.II or Welder is not a fortuitous circumstance but it is based on certain qualifications and experiences in certain specialities. If one possesses that . then alone, he can be promoted to a particular higher post. The posts belong to the same department and, therefore, this authority which is the bed- rock of Amarchands case (supra) and Nawalkishore Singhs case (supra) has little application to the facts of the present case. 14. In Jaswant Raj Singhvi vs. Union of India(4). for promotion to the post of Junior Scientific Officer, the Foreman in the pay scale of Rs. 840-1040. the Senior Scientific Assistant in the pay scales of Rs. 550-900 and the Chief Draughtsman in the pay scale of Rs. 700 -900 made eligible. 15. 14. In Jaswant Raj Singhvi vs. Union of India(4). for promotion to the post of Junior Scientific Officer, the Foreman in the pay scale of Rs. 840-1040. the Senior Scientific Assistant in the pay scales of Rs. 550-900 and the Chief Draughtsman in the pay scale of Rs. 700 -900 made eligible. 15. While relying on Amarchands case (supra) Nawal Kishore Singhs case (supra), it was observed that the proper course for preparing combined list for the D.P.C. should have been to place the persons of higher grades above those of the lower grades but this appears not to have been done. It was accordingly held that the list has not been correctly prepared by the respondents in accordance with the law laid down by this Court. 16. On the basis of the aforesaid three authorities viz; Mohd. Usmans case(supra), Amarchands case (Supra) and Nawalkishore Singhs case (supra) it was argued by Mr. M.R. Singhvi the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that differences in the pay scales or educational qualifications cannot be treated to be decisive factors in construing the promotional avenues as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 17. We may state here that these considerations, even if they are not decisive by themselves, are relevant considerations for arriving at a conclusion whether unequal are being treated as equals. When they are taken into consideration with some other material they may furnish a solid foundation for coming to the conclusion whether it is a case of unequal being treated as equals. However, in doing so, it has to be seen that classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes certain classes of persons that are grouped together from others and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. A reasonable classification is one which classified all persons or things similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law i.e. it should be ensured that the persons or things similarly situated are provided with similar treatment. Thus, mere differentiation in pay scales and qualifications may not be a decisive factors unless such a differentiation based on educational attainments, qualifications and experience are not obligated by the nature of the duties of the higher post. In this respect, we place reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Thus, mere differentiation in pay scales and qualifications may not be a decisive factors unless such a differentiation based on educational attainments, qualifications and experience are not obligated by the nature of the duties of the higher post. In this respect, we place reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shujat Ali V. Union of India (5), wherein it has been obseved:- that to permit discrimination based on educational attachments not obligated by the nature of the duties of the higher post is to stifle the social thrust of the equality clause." 18. Thus, if differentiation has something to do with the nature of the duties that have to be performed i.e. if they have any reasonable nexus to the duties to be per formed then such a differentiation will not be considered to be ultra vires to Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution but it will be treated to be a classification founded on intelligible differentia. If the object sought to be achieved has no relation to the qualifications that are required by a person clubbed together with one another for the promotional avenues then of course, it is case of treating unequal as equals. Item No. 18 appended to the Rules deals with the post of Fitter. Fitters are to be recruited 100% by direct recruitment from amongst the persons holding certificate from Indus-trial Training Institute in concerned trade or literate with 3 years experience in lifting and assembling of diesel and petrol Engine. Thus,a fitter is expected to do the job of lilting and assembling of Diesel and petrol Engines. Item No.17 of the Schedule lays down the source of recruitment and qualifications for promotion or direct recruitment to the post of Welder. The post of Welder can be filed in 50% by promotion from amongst the fitter and 50% by direct recruitment. For direct recruitment to the post of Weldor,the qualifications required are a certificate in welding from Industrial Training Institute with 2 years practical experience in gas and electric welding and the person should be capable to work independently in welding plates including hard facing with special alloy electrodes. A fitter who has three years experience on the post of fitter with knowledge of electrical and gas welding including hard facing with special alloy electrodes can be "promoted to the post of Welder. A fitter who has three years experience on the post of fitter with knowledge of electrical and gas welding including hard facing with special alloy electrodes can be "promoted to the post of Welder. Thus, the Job requirement for the post of welder is electrical and gas welding including hard facing with special alloy electrodes. The post of Mechanic Gr. II can be filled in 50% by promotion from amongst the Fitters and 50% by direct recruitment. A person holding certificate in the trade from Industrial Training Institute with 2 years practical experience in repairing petrol and Diesel trucks, compressors and dialing rigs can be appointed as Mechanic Gr. II direct recruitment. A person who is literate with 5 years experience on the post of fitter can also be promoted as Mechanic Gr.II thus, Mechanic Gr. II is required to perform the job of repairing Petrol and Diesel Trucks, Compressor and Drilling Rigs. So far as the post of Mechanic Gr. I is concerned , it can be filled 75% by promotion from amongst the Mechanic Gr.II and welders and 25% by direct recruitment. A person holding diploma in Mechanical or electrical engineering with one years practical experience in repairing of petrol and Diesel Machines can be appointed as Mechanic Gr.I. A person who is literate with 5 years experience on the posts of Mechanic Gr.II or Welder can also be promoted on the post of Mechanic Gr.I. Thus, Mechanic Gr.I is required to perform the Job of repairing of petrol and diesel machines. The job requirement for the post of Mechanic Gr.I has no concern with the job of electrical and gas welding including hard facing with special alloy electrodes, which a welder is required to perform. The job requirements of a Mechanic Gr.II, who is either appointed through direct recruitment or is promoted from the post Fitter has a direct nexus with the job that has to be performed by a mechanic Gr.I Thus, the job requirement of Welder has no nexus with the job that has to be performed by a Mechanic Gr. I. It is not a case where the persons drawn from different sources Constitute a single integrated cadre and, therefore, the difference in job requirement has to be taken into account. 19. Mr. I. It is not a case where the persons drawn from different sources Constitute a single integrated cadre and, therefore, the difference in job requirement has to be taken into account. 19. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that such a difference in job requirement should not be taken into consideration. In this respect, he invited our attention to Amarchands case (supra). In that case promotion to the post of a Head Master was to be made from the cadre of post of a Head Master was to be made from the cadre of Senior Teachers as also the cadre of II grade teachers the senior Teachers and Second grade teachers both are required to perform the same type of job i.e. teaching the students and, therefore, the job requirement of a second grade teachers and a senior teacher not only has inter se similarity but it has a direct nexus to the job which he may be called upon to perform as a Head Master as he too is required to perform the job of teaching the students In addition to some administrative functions which he may be called upon discharge as Head Master of a School. Thus, Amarchands case is of assistance to the case in hand. 20. It is true that in Jaswant Raj Singhvis case (supra) the post of Junior Scientific Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 was to be filed in from amongst three different posts i.e. the Foreman in the pay Scale of Rs.840-1040, Senior Scientific Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.550-900 and Chief Draughtsman in the pay scale of Rs. 700-900 but no such controversy was raised before the learned Single Judge that job requirements of any of these posts have no direct nexus with the job requirement of Junior Scientific "Officer. 700-900 but no such controversy was raised before the learned Single Judge that job requirements of any of these posts have no direct nexus with the job requirement of Junior Scientific "Officer. The only question raised was that the list the has been submitted to the D.P.C. has not been correctly formulated because a person of higher grade should be placed above those who are the lower grade the seniority in the list could not have been assigned on the basis of the length of service in that particular grade Ofcourse, in that case, it was contended that the petitioner should have been selected but the Court held that the case of the petitioners has been considered and he has not been found suitable for promotion. However, the Court Directed that the proper course to be adopted for preparing a combined list for the D.P.C. should be this that the persons enjoying higher grades but it appear that this has not been done. It was those circumstances that it was held that the list has not been correctly prepared by the respondents in accordance with the law laid down by this Court. It was further observed as follows: "Thus the criteria adopted by the respondent is not correct and the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to prepare a combined list of persons in accordance with the criteria suggested by the Patna High court in the case of Nawal Kishore Singh V. UOI (supra) and the same was adopted by this Court in the case of Amar Chand V. State of Raj. (supra). 21. Thus, it is clear that in Jaswantraj Singhvis case, no such question was raised that the job requirements of any of theses three posts viz., Foreman, Senior Scientific Assistant and Chief Draughtsman have no nexus with the job requirements of the post of Junior Scientific Officer and, therefore, to this extent Jaswant Raj Singhvis case is of no avail. 22. Now, we take up Mohd. Usmans case (supra). In that case, it was held by their lordships of the Supreme Court that UDCs are definitely senior and superior to the L.D.Cs. because the post of U.D.C. is a promotional post but that differentiation inspite of its existence was overlooked on the ground that the selection to the post of Sub Registrar was statewise whereas promotions are accorded to the L.D.Cs. because the post of U.D.C. is a promotional post but that differentiation inspite of its existence was overlooked on the ground that the selection to the post of Sub Registrar was statewise whereas promotions are accorded to the L.D.Cs. on the post of U.D.Cs. district-wise. It may be that in one district, a L.D.C. can be promoted as U.D.C. within five years whereas in another district inspite of the fact that a L.D.C. is better qualified and may be most efficient still he cannot be promoted as U.D.C. for 15 long years. Thus the, fortuitous circumstance of an Officer becoming a U.D.C. earlier would have given him under advantage over his seniors in other districts who might have been as efficient or even more efficient than himself, merely because they chanced to serve in some other district. That being so, while making recruitment to a statewise cadre, it was not possible for the State to make distinction between the L.D.Cs. and the U.D.Cs. The only reasonable basis that could have been adopted was to treat the U.D.Cs. and L.D.Cs. as one class for the purpose of recruitment. But at the same time, the rule provides for giving preference to the U.D.Cs. who had put in service as U.D.C. for five years or more. In those circumstances, it was, held by their lordships of the Supreme Court that it is not a case of treating unequal as equals. The facts of Mohd. Usmans case do not apply to the case on hand. Here, there is a marked difference in qualifications for the posts of Mechanic Gr.II and Welder. The job requirement of a Welder has no nexus with the job that has to be performed by a Mechanic Gr. I whereas the job requirement of a Mechanic Gr.II has direct nexus with the job that has to be performed by a Mechanic Gr.I. Promotion from the post of Helper to that of a Welder is not ipso facto or automatic. It can only be made when one acquires special knowledge of electric and gas welding including hard facing with special alloy electrodes. Any helper who acquires the aforesaid special knowledge and three years experience on the post of Fitter can promoted as Welder. It can only be made when one acquires special knowledge of electric and gas welding including hard facing with special alloy electrodes. Any helper who acquires the aforesaid special knowledge and three years experience on the post of Fitter can promoted as Welder. If the posts of Welder and Mechanic Gr.II are clubbed together for promotion to the post of Mechanic Gr.I, then a Fitter who has been promoted on the post of Welder will get his promotion on the post of Mechanic Gr.I within eight years whereas a fitter, who has been promoted on the post of Mechanic Gr,II will get his promotion within ten years. 23. Mr. M. Mridul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Chief Engineer, Ground Water Department, Jodhpur was cognizant of this fact and he has moved the State Government for change in the Rules. i.e. to delete the entry Welder in Column No.4 of item No.15 relating to concerning promotion to the post of Mechanic Gr. I mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the Rules. Mr. Singhvi has submitted that this is only a recommendation of the Department and it has not yet been acted upon by the respondents and, therefore, it should not be struck down because this rule is prevailing for the benefit of the employees for a long time and, therefore, the Court should be slow to interfere with such rules unless the Rules are held to be unconstitutional. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India. V.S. Krishan Murthy (6). 24. On the other hand, Mr. Mridul has place reliance on a decision of their lordship of the Supreme Court in Motor General Traders V. State of A.P. (7), wherein it has been observed that long continuation of an invalid provision would not confer on it any immunity as regards a challenge to its constitutionality. 25. It was argued by Mr. Singhvi that the classification should be broad Based and not microscopic and the history and nature of the service should also be kept in view. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in A.S. Iyer & Ors. V. Balasubramanyam & Ors. (8). We have already applied this teat in this caseest. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in A.S. Iyer & Ors. V. Balasubramanyam & Ors. (8). We have already applied this teat in this caseest. We have already held that the job requirements of a Welder has nothing to do with the job requirements of Mechanic Grade I whereas the job requirements of Mechanic Gr.II has directed nexus with the job that has to be performed by a Mechanic Gr.I In absence of such a nexus between the job requirements of two posts viz., Welder and Mechanic Gr.II vis-a-vis Mechanic Gr.I and further coupled with the fact that the qualifications and pay scales of both these posts i.e. Welder and Mechanic Gr.II are also different, we are firmly of the view that it is case of treating unequal as equals and as such clubbing of these two posts of Welder and Mechanic Gr.II for promotion to the post of Mechanic Gr.I is arbitrary and unjust and suffers from the vice of inequality i.e. it militate against the principle of equality before law and equal protection of laws, and, therefore, the entry Welder in column No.4 of item No.15 relating to Mechanic Gr.I the Schedule appended to the Rules deserves to be struck down as being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 26. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that if the entry Welder in column No.4 of item No.15 relating to Mechanic Gr. I of the Schedule appended to the Rules is declared to be ultra vires to the Constitution then promotional even use of the Welders will be blacked. He has submitted that reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Raghunath Pd. Singh V. Secy. Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar (9), wherein it has been observed as follows: "Before we Part the appeal, we would like to take notice of another respect. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Raghunath Pd. Singh V. Secy. Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar (9), wherein it has been observed as follows: "Before we Part the appeal, we would like to take notice of another respect. In course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us, learned counsel for the appellant indicated the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over to the general cadre. He relied upon two or three communications which are a part the record where it has been indicated that there is no promotional opportunity available in the wireless organisation. Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in very wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and posters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellency in service. In the absence of promotional , the services is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. we would, there fore, direct the State of Jinar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the Officers of the state Public in the wirales organisation within six months in from today by appropriate amendments in the Rules." 27. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations of their lordship of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that at least two words promotional opportunities should be provided to the welders within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. 28. In the result, we accept this writ petition and hold the entry Welder in column No.4 of item No.15 relating to Mechanic Gr. I of the Schedule appended to the Rules is unconstitutional being and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of. the Constitution and direct the respondents to delate it forthwith by appropriate amendments in the Rules. We further direct the respondent that if any officiating or ad-hoc promotions have been made to the post of Mechanic Gr. I from amongst the Welders during the pendency of this writ petition its after 9.3.89,such promotees be reverted back to their original posts. The respondents are also directed to amend the Rajasthan Ground Water subordinate Service Rules, 1973 by providing two more promotional avenue to the Welders. such an amendment should be made be within six months from today . 29. The respondents are also directed to amend the Rajasthan Ground Water subordinate Service Rules, 1973 by providing two more promotional avenue to the Welders. such an amendment should be made be within six months from today . 29. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear there own costs of this writ petition.