JUDGMENT 1. - Under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short, the Act), the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, the Board) has the power to frame regulations pertaining to the service conditions of the employees belonging to different categories and cadres. It appears that no regulations were framed for recruitment and conditions of Subordinate Engineering Service and appointment to that service were and are being made on the basis of the policy of the Board, which has not been consistent inasmuch as some-times the appointments were made by competitive examinations and other times without such examination. The recruitment to the subordinate engineering service was from amongst Diploma holders as well as Degree Holders. Initially the persons possessing Diploma in Engineering were designated as Over-seers whereas those possessing Degree were designated 'Junior Engineers'. Subsequently, on the basis of the decision of the Board vide order dated November 28, 1979 the persons working as 'Over-seers' and possessing Diploma were designated Junior Engineers Grade- II and consequently, the Junior Engineers possessing Degree were designated as Junior Engineers Grade-I. Till the year 1979, there were no independent service rules for recruitment, promotion, and seniority etc. of the employees belonging to the Engineering cadre and all recruitment whether they were for subordinate service or for superior service, were made in accordance with the instructions made by the Board by various circulars and for recruitment to the post of Asstt. Engineers and higher services the Board adopted Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Mechanical Branch) rules, 1974. It was in the year 1979 (sic 1969) that the Board framed Rajasthan State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority etc.) Regulations, 1969 (for short, the Regulations) and they were made effective from October 1, 1970. These Regulations were applicable to the post of Asstt. Engineers and other higher posts for which earlier no Regulations were framed. 2. Till the year 1971-72 the entire cadre of Subordinate Engineering Service was designated as Junior Engineers and the minimum qualifications prescribed for Junior Engineers were Diploma in a particular Branch of engineering whereas the persons possessing higher qualifications i.e. Degree were also entitled to be appointed and the appointments were to be made in accordance with the performance adjudged by the selection committee. Thus, after appointment the seniority was to follow as per the merit irrespective of the qualification possessed by a person. Thus, after appointment the seniority was to follow as per the merit irrespective of the qualification possessed by a person. At that time there was no quota provided for Diploma holders or degree holders amongst Junior Engineers. The pay scales were also the same except that the Degree holders or those possessing equivalent qualifications after recruitment or appointment were given five advance increments. For determination of their seniority, they were treated at par. Sometime in the year 1977 as a result of demands of the employees and as a result of award given by Prithvi Singh and A.L. Sancheti, those Junior Engineers who were possessing Degree and equivalent qualification were classified as Junior Engineers -Class I and those possessing Diploma were classified as Junior Engineers class-II. Upto the year 1971, the seniority list of the Degree-holders and Diploma holders junior Engineers/Over-seers were prepared as combined one, but the Regulations provide proportion from amongst Diploma holders and Degree -holders for promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineer, which promotion were to be made according to and under the Regulations in force from time to time and the quota of Degree-holders and Diploma holders was adhered to. Later on, two separate lists, one of Diploma holders and the other of Degree Holders Junior Engineers were prepared and promotions were given in accordance with the seniority in the respective seniority lists. A Diploma-holder Junior Engineer Class-II, after passing AMIE Examination which is equivalent to Degree, was eligible for consideration for promotion in both the lists i.e. of the Diploma-holders as well as Degree-holders wherever his chance of promotion comes earlier according to his seniority in the respective lists. In the list of the Degree-holder, such Diploma-holders were to be placed junior to all the Degree-holders recruited before the date of his passing the AMIE Examination and will be senior to those who are recruited after the date of his passing the AMIE Examination. 3. The Regulations, as said earlier, were framed in the year 1969, which came into force on October 1, 1970, for recruitment, promotion and seniority etc. to the post of Asst. Engineers and above. In the Schedule-I to the Regulations, the post of Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) falls under the heading 'Junior Posts'. 3. The Regulations, as said earlier, were framed in the year 1969, which came into force on October 1, 1970, for recruitment, promotion and seniority etc. to the post of Asst. Engineers and above. In the Schedule-I to the Regulations, the post of Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) falls under the heading 'Junior Posts'. Column 4 of the Schedule I deals with method of recruitment and 75% of the posts were to be filled by direct recruitment and 25% by promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit. As per note appended to column IV provided that, the persons will be promoted from Degree Holders and Diploma Holders in equal proportion. This ratio of promotion from amongst Diploma holders and Degree- holders was changed to 3: 1 with effect from December 28, 1973 in favour of Degree Holders. Column 6 of the said Schedule prescribes the eligibility for promotion and it was provided that a person holding degree or AMIE or equivalent qualification with two years as Junior Engineer (Electrical) or a diploma holder from a recognised institution with 7 years requisite experience as Junior Engineer would be eligible. In the year 1975, the Schedule was amended by Notification dated December 28, 1975, and the word 'Junior Engineer' was substituted by Junior Engineer/Over- seer. In column 8 Board's decision regarding filling up of the quota of degree holders and diploma holders was specified. As stated earlier, a reference has been made to the demands of employees and on the opinion expressed in the Award of Prithvi Singh and A.L. Sancheti as a result of the decision,the persons possessing Degree were classified as Junior Engineer-Class-I and those who were possessing Diploma, were classified as Junior Engineer-Class-11. The Board is- sued an order dated December 22, 1979, on the basis of resolution of the Board in its 274th meeting and by the said resolution certain amendments were introduced in Schedule-I under the heading of Junior posts. The Board took a decision that persons passing AMIE must have two years experience after passing of the examination or a total experience of 7 years as Junior Engineer whichever is earlier. For the present as column 4 of Schedule I to the Regulations stands, under heading 'Junior posts the promotions to the post of Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) are made 75% by direct recruitment and 25% by promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit. For the present as column 4 of Schedule I to the Regulations stands, under heading 'Junior posts the promotions to the post of Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) are made 75% by direct recruitment and 25% by promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit. The note-I of column 1 at item No. 1 under heading 'junior posts provides that the persons will be promoted from Degree Holders and Diploma Holders in the ratio of 3:1. In column 7 the Board's decision is that 1 /3 period of total regular service, subject to maximum of two years put in by a person as Junior Engineer Grade I/11 in the Board before passing the AMIE examination be counted towards the minimum eligibility period of 2 years for appointment as AEN. This will however not give such employees any claim for seniority. In the list of degree holders he will be placed junior to all the degree holders recruited before the date of his passing the AMIE Examination and will be senior to those who are recruited after the date of his passing the examination. In column 6 of Schedule I to the Regulations which column deals with Qualification and experience for promotion, it is provided that B.E. (Elec.)or AMIE (Elec.) or qualification declared equivalent by Government with two years service as Junior Engineer (Elec.) or Diploma holder from a recognised Institution with 7 years requisites experience as Junior Engineer-Grade I/1I (Electrical). 4. The petitioner has challenged the Regulations in so far as it deprives the Diploma Holders the right of seniority after their acquiring the qualifications of Degree and the challenge is on the ground that it is arbitrary and discriminatory. According to the petitioner the requirement of gaining two years' experience after passing AMIE examination is itself unconstitutional because it seeks to draw distinction between the persons possessing Degree and Diplomas and there is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and the distinction is hypothetical and illusory. It is the case of the petitioner that no distinction can be made between Degree-holders and Diploma-holders and it suffers from the vice of discrimination in the matter of diploma-holders' right to count his total length of service as Junior Engineer Class II for the purpose of promotion and seniority. It is the case of the petitioner that no distinction can be made between Degree-holders and Diploma-holders and it suffers from the vice of discrimination in the matter of diploma-holders' right to count his total length of service as Junior Engineer Class II for the purpose of promotion and seniority. The petitioner has claimed that after striking down the Schedule appended to the Regulations so far as placement of seniority is concerned, it be declared that he is entitled to be placed in the seniority of Degree holders according to his total length of service. 5. The question therefore, arises as to whether the Board's decision dated December 22,1979 that only 1 /3rd period of total regular service subject to maximum of two years put by a Junior Engineer Grade-1/11 in the Board before passing AMIE examination will be counted towards the minimum eligibility period of service for appointment as Asstt. Engineer as provided in column 6 of the Schedule and that it will however not give such an employee any claim for seniority is invalid being arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore is ultravires of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? 6. At the later stage a reference to the rules alongwith Schedule-I moreso, to the entry 1, 'AEN (Electrical)' under the heading 'Junior Posts' shall be made. It has been the consistent view of the Apex Court that classification of two grades based on academic qualifications is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the case of State of Mysore and another v. P. Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349 , a five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court was examining the equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment. In the case of two pay scales for tracers one for matriculate tracers with a higher pay and the other for non- matriculate tracer with lower pay scale, it was held that it is not violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court said that Article 14 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion. It follows that there can be a reasonable classification of the employees for the purpose of appointment or promotion. The court said that Article 14 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion. It follows that there can be a reasonable classification of the employees for the purpose of appointment or promotion. The concept of equality in the matter of promotion can be predicted only when the promotees are drawn from the same source. The court further said that the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 do not exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the Government from laying down qualifications for the post in question. Such qualifications need not be only technical but they can also be general qualifications relating to the suitability of the candidate for public service as such. Again a five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and others, AIR 1974 SC-1 , was examining the J. and K. Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules (1970). There was a classification of Asstt. Engineers between Diploma-holders and Degree- holders, for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The court said that the classification was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering services, and the classification based on educational qualifications and experience is reasonable and does not violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court also said that the classification is primarily for the legislature or for the statutory authority charged with the duty of framing the terms and conditions of service and if looked at from the stand point of the authority making it, the classification is found to rest on a reasonable basis, it has to be upheld. In the famous case of Mohd. Shujat All v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631 , the court said that the doctrine of reasonable classification recognises that the legislature may classify for the purpose of legislation but requires that the classification must be reasonable. It should ensure that persons or things similarly situated are all similarly treated. The measure of reasonable- ness of a classification is the degree of its success in treating similarly those similarly situated. The court said that a reasonable classification is one which includes all persons or things similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law. It should ensure that persons or things similarly situated are all similarly treated. The measure of reasonable- ness of a classification is the degree of its success in treating similarly those similarly situated. The court said that a reasonable classification is one which includes all persons or things similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law. There should be no discrimination between one person or thing and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation, their position is substantially the same. The court further said that to permit discrimination based on educational attainments not obligated by the nature of the duties of the higher post is to stifle the social thrust of the equality clause. A rule of promotion which while conceding that non- graduate supervisors are also fit to be promoted as Assistant Engineers, reserves a higher quota of vacancies for promotion for graduate Supervisors as against non-graduate Supervisors would clearly be calculated to destroy the guarantee of equal opportunity. But still the Court said that Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules in so far as they make differentiation between graduate and non-graduate Supervisors cannot be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court took into consideration the back-ground and also took into consideration that it has always been there in the Engineering Service of the Hyderabad and the Andhra Pradesh States and the Graduates have always been treated as a distinct and separate class from non- Graduate Supervisors. In the case of Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal, AIR 1976 SC 2345 , the Supreme Court said that it is open to the State to lay down any rule which it thinks appropriate for determining seniority in service and it is not competent to the court to strike down such rule on the ground that in its opinion another rule would have been better or more appropriate. The court said that the only inquiry which the court can make is whether the rule laid down by the State is arbitrary and irrational so that it results in inequality of opportunity amongst employees belonging to the same class. The court said that the only inquiry which the court can make is whether the rule laid down by the State is arbitrary and irrational so that it results in inequality of opportunity amongst employees belonging to the same class. In the case of Ganga Ram and others v. The Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 2178 , the court was examining the rules for determining seniority of Grade-I Accounts Clerk as contained in Indian Railways Establishment Manual over-the seniority of direct recruits. The court said that the State which encounters diverse problems arising from a variety of circumstances is entitled to lay down conditions of efficiency and other qualifications for securing the best service for being eligible for promotion in its different departments. The Court further said that direct recruits and promotees clearly constitute different classes and this classification is sustainable on- intelligible differentia which has a reasonable connection with the object of efficiency sought to be achieved. 7. In the case of H.C. Sharma and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, AIR 1983 SC 881 , on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for ( the petitioner. In paras 56 and 57 the court said that carving out two classes in the same category of Junior Engineers on the basis merely of their qualification is not permissible in law though the creation of selection grade in the same category on the basis of merit and or seniority is well-known and permissible. The aforesaid observations were made on the facts of that case. The posts of Asstt. Engineers were to be filled in 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from among Junior Engineers. The criterion for promotion of Junior Engineers as Asstt. Engineers is selection-cum-seniority. There was one integrated seniority list even in that case of H.C.Sharma (supra), and in Para-l1 the court said - "The chances of Graduate Junior Engineers becoming Assistant Engineers are very bleak. The criterion for promotion of Junior Engineers as Asstt. Engineers is selection-cum-seniority. There was one integrated seniority list even in that case of H.C.Sharma (supra), and in Para-l1 the court said - "The chances of Graduate Junior Engineers becoming Assistant Engineers are very bleak. Justice can be done to both Diploma-holders and Graduates amongst the Junior Engineers by providing a reasonable quota for both categories in the 50 percent quota reserved for promotees in the matter of appointment of Assistant Engineers as is done in the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking so that Graduates and Diploma-holders amongst the Junior Engineers may get equal chances of promotion." It was further observed in para 12 that - "The Supreme Court has held that separate category within the same category on the basis of educational qualification is clearly permissible and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But the first respondent is treating the two categories as equal. Thus, holding that the respondents have always been treating the two categories equal, the aforesaid view was taken. In Punjab Stake Electricity Board Patiala and another v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and others, (1986)4 SCC 617 , the court was dealing with the question of seniority and promotion where quota was based on qualifications and the court said that where promotion to be made out of common seniority list comprising persons holding different qualifications (Diploma holders and non-diploma holders) and no preference has been prescribed to holders of any particular qualification for promotion, no discrimination can be made amongst them by fixing quota based on qualifications. The court was examining the case of a Lineman under the Punjab State Electricity Board, some of whom were diploma holders or ITI trained and some of whom were non-diploma holders and they formed and constituted one common cadre known as Lineman and in the same scale of pay. The seniority list of all those Linemen was common and joint. The Punjab State Electricity Board had prescribed different quota for diploma-holder Linemen for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent and for promotion for non-diploma holders Linemen. Taking into consideration that there was a common/joint seniority list, there was one integrated coma on cadre. Placing reliance on the case of Mohd. The Punjab State Electricity Board had prescribed different quota for diploma-holder Linemen for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent and for promotion for non-diploma holders Linemen. Taking into consideration that there was a common/joint seniority list, there was one integrated coma on cadre. Placing reliance on the case of Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975)3 SCC 76 , the court said that prescribing the quota for promotion on the basis of qualification is violative of Article 14 and 16 oo the Constitution of India. In the case of N. Abdul Basheer v. K.K. Karunakaran, AIR 1989 SC 1624 , also the court was examining a case where the category of employees had all the time been treated as one category and at no point of time, they were treated as two categories and it was not a case where the cadre of officers was kept in two separate divisions. The court said that it was a case ( of single cadre and all were equal members of the service. In the words of the Court- "This is not a case where the cadre of officers was kept in two separate divisions. It was a single cadre and they were all equal members of it. There is no evidence that graduate Preventive Officers enjoyed higher pay than non-graduate Preventive Officers". In the case Roop Chand Adlakha and others etc. v. Delhi Development Authority and others, AIR 1989 SC 307 , the Supreme Court reversed the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kimti Lal Kathuria and others v. Delhi Development Authority and others, 1988 Lab. I.C. 434 , wherein a view was taken that rules prescribing different conditions of eligibility for Diploma holders and Graduates for promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers to that of Assistant Engineers and from the cadre of Asstt. Engineers to that of Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) were not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court posed a question for examination-as to whether, where as in that case, recruitment to a particular cadre of posts is made, from two different sources, different conditions based on differences in educational qualifications, can be prescribed conditioning the eligibility for further promotion to a higher cadre in service. The court posed a question for examination-as to whether, where as in that case, recruitment to a particular cadre of posts is made, from two different sources, different conditions based on differences in educational qualifications, can be prescribed conditioning the eligibility for further promotion to a higher cadre in service. Referring to the earlier cases, the court said that it was permissible. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of this court in the case of Kailash Chand Goyal v. State of Rajasthan and another, 1988(2) WLN 446 moreso to observations made in para I I of the aforesaid judgment wherein the court said:- "Even if, the bifurcation of the cadre is held to be permissible which we would not do, the petitioner comes in the cadre of Junior Engineer, and the petitioner cannot be deprived of his seniority by making a provision, like one made by the amendment dated 30th May, 1977, in the from of proviso (4) to Rule 6." In my view the observations are obiter and the judgment was based on the ground that retrospective effect cannot be given to a rule depriving a person of his seniority. It will be proper to make a reference to the case of Dinesh Chasid Gupta v. State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 891 of 1978 , decided by this Court on March 23, 1987. The learned Judge was dealing with the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 and Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1%7 as well as the rules governing the promotion to the service in the PWD. The cadre of the Engineering Subordinates, who had been designated as Junior Engineers, was bifurcated into two sub-caders, namely- Junior Engineer and Sub-Engineer. Proviso- (1-A) was also added after proviso 1 to rule 6 whereby it was provided that if a Sub- Engineer attains the qualifications required for Junior Engineer, he shall be entitled on his application and subject to availability of vacancies, to be appointed as junior Engineer by transfer against the quota of direct recruitment, but in that case his seniority amongst Junior Engineers shall be counted from the date of actual appointment on occurrence of vacancies of Junior Engineers. In Rule 28 a new proviso (6) was also added whereby it was provided that after the bifurcation of the existing cadre of Engineering Subordinates, redesignated as Junior Engineers, as Sub-Engineer and Junior Engineers the seniority interse in the respective cadre of Sub Engineer and Junior Engineer shall be the same as it was before such bifurcation. Rajasthan Service of Engineers Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 were also amended and an amendment was made in the Schedule to those Rules and it was provided that appointment to the junior posts of Asstt. Engineers shall be made 50% by direct recruitment and 25% by promotion from the cadre of Sub Engineers and 25% by promotion from the cadre Junior Engineer. A note was also inserted in column 7 against S. Nos. 1,2, and 3 under heading 'Junior posts' whereby it was provided that prior to the date, the cadre of Junior Engineer has been separated as Sub Engineers and Junior Engineers, the service of Engineering Subordinates or Junior Engineers shall count as experience of Service. There was a provision that if in the Service a Sub-Engineer acquires Degree Examination, BE. or its equivalent AMIE, he will be appointed as Junior Engineer w.e.f. the date he acquires such qualification and there was no provision whether so acquiring the qualification so far as a Sub Engineer is concerned, whether it shall be counted for seniority among Junior Engineers, if one after acquiring Degree qualification as aforesaid was appointed as Junior Engineer. The court repelled the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in that case in so far as bifurcation of cadre of Engineering Subordinate in Sub-Engineers and Junior Engineers on the basis of academic qualification is concerned. The court repelled the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in that case in so far as bifurcation of cadre of Engineering Subordinate in Sub-Engineers and Junior Engineers on the basis of academic qualification is concerned. Referring to the case law on the point, the learned Judge said:- "It cannot, therefore, be said that the classification of Engineering Subordinates (Junior Engineers) into Junior Engineers and Sub Engineers on the basis of educational qualification is arbitrary or unreasonable so as to be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution." Dealing with the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner urged in respect of criterion for fixation of seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineer, the court referred to proviso 1-A to rule 6 of the 1967 Rules which provides that if a Sub-Engineer attains the qualification required for Junior Engineer, he shall be entitled on his application and subject to availability of vacancies, to be appointed as Junior Engineer by transfer against the quota of direct recruitment but in that case his seniority amongst Junior Engineers shall be counted from the date of actual appointment on occurrence of vacancy of Junior Engineer. The court struck down the latter part of that proviso (1-A) to rule 6 of the 1967 Rules extracted above, namely, 'but in that case his seniority amongst Junior Engineers shall be counted from the date of actual appointment on occurrence of vacancy of Junior Engineer" and directed the respondents in that case to revise the seniority of the petitioner in that case in accordance with proviso(IA) to rule 6 of the 1967 Rules in accordance with order made by the learned Judge. The learned Judge also directed to prescribe for fixation of seniority within three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis and has relied upon the aforesaid view of the learned Single Judge of this Court, in support of his contention that the Board's decision referred to above dated December 22, 1979, which substituted column 7 as it existed upto April 1, 1979, was not taken into consideration, did not take into consideration any length of service as junior Engineer-grade II for the purpose of determination of seniority amongst Junior Engineers, after a Junior Engineer Grade II passed AMIE Examination and is appointed as Junior Engineer and therefore, the said decision is arbitrary, and invalid. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as and when a Junior Engineer Grade 11 acquires AMIE examination or any other Degree qualification and is appointed as Junior Engineer Grade I, such period of his service as junior Engineer Grade II should be counted for the purpose of fixing seniority amongst Junior Engineers Grade I and his experience gained as junior Engineer Grade 11 cannot be given go-bye. In my opinion, the court was dealing with the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 and more so, the post of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) which was a post under the heading 'Junior Posts'. That promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineer against 25% quota from Degree holders with three years service as Junior Engineer was also provided as well as for promotion against 25% quota reserved for diploma holders, it was provided that besides holding diploma in Civil the Diploma Holder Junior Engineer must have 10 years requisite experience as Sub Engineer (Civil). A perusal of the Schedule to the Rules in the instant case to which reference has been made in the earlier part of this order will show that whereas a Junior Engineer Grade- I/11 for being entitled to be promoted to the post of Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) besides having B.E. Electrical Degree or AMIE (Electrical) or qualifications declared equivalent by Government, he is also required to have two years service as Junior Engineer (Electrical) or Diploma holder from a recoginsed institute 7 years requisite experience as Junior Engineer Gr. I/II (Electrical). As per Board decision dated December 22,1979, an in-service Junior Engineer Grade-1/11 after passing AMIE Examination was conferred right that 1 /3rd period of total period of service subject to maximum of two years put in by him before passing the examination will be counted towards the maximum eligibility period for appointment as Asstt.Engineer, but it was specifically provided that this will however not give him any claim for seniority and in the list of degree-holders he will be placed Junior to all the degree holders recruited before the date of his passing the AMIE examination and will be senior to those who are recruited after the date of his passing the examination. It will therefore be clear that if any in service diploma holder Junior Engineer Grade 1/ll(Elec.) passed AMIE examination, he had a right for consideration for promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineer from amongst the quota/ratio meant for promotion for degree-holders and he was placed at par with the degree-holder Junior Engineer Gr. l/Il, subject to his total period of service not in any case exceeding two years being counted towards the minimum eligibility period of two years. Thus, the degree-holders Junior Engineers Gr. I/l1(Elec.)with two years service as well as such diploma holders Junior Engineers Gr.l/11 who had to their credit six years or more service as Junior Engineers before passing the AMIE Examination were placed at par and it can therefore be said that the services rendered by diploma holders Junior Engineers Gr-I/II(Elec.) before passing AMIE Examination were not given go-bye but as said earlier were to be counted towards the eligibility period of two years with Degree-holder Junior Engineers Grade-I/11 (Electrical), but in respect of seniority it was provided that in the list of Degree holders such of the diplomas holders Junior Engineers will be placed junior to all the Degree-holders recruited before the date of their passing AMIE Examination, but they will be senior to those Degree-Holders who were recruited after their passing the AMIE examination. A distinction has to be made in the period of eligibility for purpose of promotion as well as in seniority. The History of the Rules will be referred to, but suffice it to say that there have always been two lists of Junior Engineers Grade- 1/11, one for diploma-holders and the other for Degree-holders and there has always been ratio/quota for promotion from Junior Engineers to the post of Asstt. Engineers though the ratio/quota had undergone changes. A diploma holder junior Engineer, who has passed his AMIE examination will have a right and his name will remain in both the lists and as and when chance of promotion comes in either of them, he will be promoted. Engineers though the ratio/quota had undergone changes. A diploma holder junior Engineer, who has passed his AMIE examination will have a right and his name will remain in both the lists and as and when chance of promotion comes in either of them, he will be promoted. In my opinion, in case there are two lists of Junior Engineer, Grade-1/11 and there are no rules, then such of the degree-holder (sic diploma holder) Junior Engineers who passed AMIE Examination, his name will appear in the seniority list of Degree-holder Junior Engineers, but he cannot claim seniority over such Junior Engineers (Degree holders) who might have been recruited prior to the passing of the AMIE examination and he could only claim seniority over degree-holder Junior Engineers who were recruited after his passing said AMIE Examination. The Rules therefore, provide 1 /3rd period of total regular service subject to maximum of two years put in by a Junior Engineer Gr. I/11 before passing his AMIE examination, to be counted towards the minimum eligibility period of two years for appointment as Asstt. Engineer and it will not give any claim of seniority and he will be placed junior to those degree-holders who were recruited prior to his passing his AMIE examination and he will be senior to those degree-holders who were recruited after passing his aforesaid Examination. This rule, in my opinion, does not appear to be arbitrary and does not suffer from the vice of discrimination and cannot be declared to be ultravires of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. It may be stated at this stage that in the writ petition, fixation of quota/ratio for promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineer is not under challenge and what is under challenge is the criteria under which no credit is given of the period of service rendered by a Diploma holder Junior Engineer before passing his AMIE Examination for the purpose of seniority amongst Degree-holder Junior Engineers Gr. I/I1. It has already been said that different experience for promotion can be prescribed on the basis of qualification and if so provided under the Rules it cannot be said to be suffering from any vice of discrimination. It appears that till the year 1971 all the Junior Engineers (Elec.) formed one category and there was no further sub- categorisation or sub-division among Junior Engineers Grade -1/I1. It appears that till the year 1971 all the Junior Engineers (Elec.) formed one category and there was no further sub- categorisation or sub-division among Junior Engineers Grade -1/I1. Minimum qualifications were prescribed for appointment as junior Engineer in a particular Branch of Engineering and a person holding higher qualification could also apply. The pay scale was same except that five advance increments were to be given to degree-holders or those possessing equivalent qualifications at the time of their appointment. Even for the purpose of seniority, they were treated at par. But later on such a division was made and there have been two categories of Junior Engineers, Grade-1/11, i.e. Degree-holders and Diploma-Holders. Earlier, the persons possessing Diploma in Engineering were designated as 'Overseers' whereas those possessing Degree in Engineering (Electrical or Mechanical) were designated as Junior Engineers and subsequently on the basis of decision of the Board, the persons working as 'Over-seers' possessing Diploma in Engineering were designated as Junior Engineer class II and the Junior Engineers possessing Degree were designated as Junior Engineer class 1. As said earlier, Regulations came into force on October 1, 1970 and part III of the Regulations deals with Recruitment to the Service.One of the methods of recruitment is by promotion of Junior Engineers Gr.I/Junior Engineer Gr. II in accordance with part VI of the Regulations in the proportion indicated in column 4 of the Schedule 1. Under Regulation 19, part VI, of the Regulations, the appointments (permanent or in a temporary/ officiating capacity) by promotion to the posts of Asstt. Engineers shall be made on the basis of seniority cum merit. Regulation 19 deals with qualifying service for promotion and under it no junior Engineer Gr. I/Junior Engineer Gr. II shall be eligible for promotion to the Service unless he possesses the qualifications and experience prescribed in column 6 of Schedule-1. The existing words 'Junior Engineer' were substituted by the words 'Junior Engineer/Overseer' vide Notification No. RSEB/Rules/D.33 dated October 15,1973 and subsequently by the words 'Junior Engineer Gr. I/Junior Engineer. Gr. 11' vide order No. RSEB/F and R/F.25(7)D.86 dated November 29, 1979. It appears from the perusal of regulation 20 that a separate list of Junior Engineers Grade I or Grade II, having Degree or Diploma qualifications under regulations, for promotion to the post of Asstt. I/Junior Engineer. Gr. 11' vide order No. RSEB/F and R/F.25(7)D.86 dated November 29, 1979. It appears from the perusal of regulation 20 that a separate list of Junior Engineers Grade I or Grade II, having Degree or Diploma qualifications under regulations, for promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineer, shall be prepared and shall be placed with personal files and confidential rolls before the selection committee. Under sub-rule(4) of Regulation 20, the Selection Committee shall prepare lists containing names of suitable candidates upto 1.5 the number of posts, rounded to the next higher figure, who were fit for promotion in the order of seniority. The names of such persons shall be arranged in the order of their seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineer Gr. I/Junior Engineer Gr. 11. It will appear that although under Regulations so far as promotions to the post of Asstt. Engineer (Elect.) are concerned, they have always taken place from the Diploma holders as well as Degree holders. As said earlier, the posts of Asstt. Engineer (Elec.) are to be filled in by direct recruitment and promotion in the proportion as given under column of Schedule I to the Regulations. This proportion has undergone changes from time to time. The persons have to be promoted from Degree-holders and Diploma-Holders in the ratio of 3: 1. In column 6 to Schedule Ito the Regulations under heading 'Junior Post' for the post of Asstt. Engineer (Elect) so far as promotion from amongst the Degree-holder Junior Engineers Gr. I/11 (Elec.) is concerned before one could be promoted, he must have two years service as junior Engineer (Elec.) but so far as diploma holders are concerned, they are required to seven years requisite experience as Junior Engineer Gr. I/11 (Elect.). The aforesaid specified qualification of B.E., AMIE and the diploma in Engineering as also the requirement of experience in a particular service will not apply in case of those who are assigned to this service by the Board on the basis of their options given by July 31, 1975. The figures and words 2 years' took the place of the figure and words' 3 years' vide notification No. RSEB/A and R/AS(R)F.2(3)70/D.43 dated June 24,1971. Earlier in column 7 the Board's decision was: "For appointment against degree holder quota an AMIE JEn/Overseer shall be eligible for appointment as Asstt. The figures and words 2 years' took the place of the figure and words' 3 years' vide notification No. RSEB/A and R/AS(R)F.2(3)70/D.43 dated June 24,1971. Earlier in column 7 the Board's decision was: "For appointment against degree holder quota an AMIE JEn/Overseer shall be eligible for appointment as Asstt. Engineer if he has rendered 2 years service as JEn/Overseer after passing AMIE Examination or a total Service of 7 years as JEn/Overseer, whichever is earlier". The note was inserted vide order No. 33 dated May 5, 1971 as note No. 2 and Note No.] which read as the vacant post of AEN will be filled by direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio 50: 50 upto 31.3.73 was deleted vide order No. 39 dated December 28, 1973. The aforesaid Board's decision was substituted again vide order No. RSEB/F and R/F.25(7)15-99 dated December 22, 1979, which has already been referred to in the earlier part of this order but it will be proper to read it again which is reproduced here and reads as under: "⅓rd period of total regular service subject to maximum of 2 yrs. put in by a person as JEN Cr. I/11 in the Board before passing the AMIE Exam. be counted towards the minimum eligibility period of 2 years for appointment as AEn. This will however not give such employees any claim for seniority. In the list of degree holders he will be placed junior to all the degree holders recruited before the date of his passing the AMIE Examination and will be senior to those who are recruited after the date of his* passing the examination." It will be clear that before the substitution as aforesaid vide Board's order dated November 22, 1979 though a diploma holder JEN /Overseer was eligible for appointment against degree-holder quota, if he has rendered two years service after passing AMIE Examination, but after substitution of the Board's decision as aforesaid on December 22,1979 1 /3rd of total period of service subject to maxi- mum of two years put in by a person before passing his AMIE examination had to be counted towards the minimum eligibility of two years and even Diploma- holder Junior Engineer Grade 1/ 11 with 7 years experience as junior Engineer could be promoted as Asstt. Engineer. Engineer. It is, therefore, clear by the Board's decision dated December 22,1979 as aforesaid that diploma holders in-service Junior Engineers Cr. as well as Degree- holder Junior Engineers Cr.I/11 were placed at par in so far as matter of eligibility for promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineers concerned and each of them was required to have two years service. They were therefore treated similarly so far as eligibility for promotion is concerned, and it cannot be said that no credit for service rendered by a Diploma- holder Junior Engineer Gr. l/II for making him eligible for promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) was given and it was only given to the Degree- holder Junior Engineers. I have already said earlier that under the Regulations throughout it has been the rule that promotions to the post of Asstt. Engineers from Junior Engineers Gr. I/ll are being made in certain ratio /proportion from amongst Degree holder junior Engineers and Diploma holder Junior Engineers and a ratio/quota has always been fixed. It can therefore not be said that there was one integrated service of Diploma -holder Junior Engineers and Degree- holder Junior Engineers and there was one seniority list, rather two seniority lists have been prepared and have been maintained and therefore if a Diploma-holder Junior Engineer after passing his AMIE examination is considered as Degree- holder Junior Engineer, his name will come in the seniority list of Degree-holder Junior Engineer after such of the degree-holder Junior Engineers who were recruited earlier to his passing of the AMIE examination and before Degree- holder Junior Engineers who were recruited after him. He will retain his seniority among the list of Diploma holders also. Therefore, he will have two chances of promotion in the ratio of Junior Engineers, Degree-holders as well as Diploma holders. If as Diploma-holder he has 7 years experience as Junior Engineer Gr. I/II as and when his chance comes for promotion in that category, he will be promoted and because he has passed his AMIE, his name will also appear in the seniority list of Degree-holder Junior Engineers Cr. I/II and depending on his period of service as Junior Engineer, though he will become eligible for promotion as Asstt. I/II as and when his chance comes for promotion in that category, he will be promoted and because he has passed his AMIE, his name will also appear in the seniority list of Degree-holder Junior Engineers Cr. I/II and depending on his period of service as Junior Engineer, though he will become eligible for promotion as Asstt. Engineer in the quota of Junior Engineers also, but in the seniority list of Junior Engineers, Degree-holders, his name will be below those Degree- holders who had been recruited before passing his AMIE and earlier to those who were recruits after his passing AMIE examination. In my opinion the case of Dinesh Chand (supra) decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court has no relevance to the present case. In my opinion, it will depend upon the nature of service, whether or not there can be classification on the basis of different educational qualifications and experience not only for the purpose of promotion, but also for the purpose of seniority, if there has been one integrated service, one seniority list throughout and in other words, if there has been a fusion of two cadres, then it may not be possible to further divide the service for the purpose of promotion even on that basis, in case as in the present one, there has been two lists, all through one of Degree-holders and the other of Diploma- holder Junior Engineers Gr. I/II and both the categories have been treated differently for the purpose of promotion throughout, one might have been eligible on the basis of earlier service, but so far as seniority is concerned, in the list of Degree-holder Junior Engineers Cr. I/II, his name will come after those who were recruited earlier to his passing AMIE examination and above those who have been recruited after his passing of the AMIE examination. Such a person,i.e. in-service diploma-holder Junior Engineer who has passed AMIE examination will have two chances for consideration for promotion as and when his chance comes according to his seniority among Diploma-holder Junior Engineers and Degree- holders Gr. I/II. Both are different cadres and it cannot be said that there has been discrimination in the matter of seniority. 10. Consequently, I find no merit in the writ petition. It is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******