JUDGMENT 1. - After having secured Diploma in Civil Engineering, the petitioner joined Government service w.e.f. 18.8.65 when he was appointed as Engineering Subordinate (Civil) on temporary basis in Public Works Department. He was con.!-.-,led as Engineering Subordinate w.e.f. 9.9.75. The petitioner passed his AMIE examination on 31.7.77. This qualification has been treated as equivalent to Degree in Engineering. By order dated, 19.7.79, the petitioner was designated as Junior Engineer (Civil) w.e.f.31.7.77. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on urgent temporary basis by Government order dated, 10,2,81. Subsequently, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee he was promoted as Assistant Engineer vide Government order dated, 24.6.82. His promotion has been made against the quota of 1981. According to the petitioner, he ought to have been assigned the quota of 1978 instead of 1981. because, he was eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineer against that quota. The petitioner has referred to the case of one Shri G. C. Mathur, who had filed writ petition before the High Court. His Writ Petition No. 837/1983 was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 29.11.1988 after having been contested by the respondents. In its, judgment dated, 29.11.88, the High Court declared that the experience gained by a Engineering personnel, before acquiring qualification of Degree or equivalent qualification is countable for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post. The Court directed that the petitioner G. C. Mathur be considered for promotion for the vacancies available after the year 1975. The petitioner claimed that although, the Department of Personnel has issued a Circular dated, 3.1.87 and has enjoined upon all the parties that once the judgment is rendered by the competent court, the principles laid down in that case shall be applied in similar cases, notwithstanding that the respondents have not given him the benefit of the judgment of this Court in G. C. Mathur's case. The petitioner made representation dated, 3.3.89 and then again made representation on 22.1.91. However, these representations have remained un-answered. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be considered for promotion against the quota of 1978 by being treated eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineer. 2. No reply to the writ petition has been filed. On 25.3.92 this Court had directed that the writ petition deserves to be decided in the light of the judgment in G. C. Mathur's case. 2. No reply to the writ petition has been filed. On 25.3.92 this Court had directed that the writ petition deserves to be decided in the light of the judgment in G. C. Mathur's case. Last opportunity was given to file reply within ten days. Further Opportunities were given on 6.4.92 and 17.4.92. Notwithstanding this, the reply has not been filed by the respondents. 3. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the experience gained by the petitioner prior to his passing A.M I.E. is accountable for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case of G. C. Mathur (supra), of which reference has been made here in above. The learned Deputy Government Advocate could not point out any feature which distinguishes the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis the case of G. C. Mathur. 4. In G.C. Mathur's case, the Division Bench had considered an identical question and had observed : "Diploma holders are called Engineering subordinates or Sub Engineers and Degree holders are called Junior Engineers but there is no difference in the nature of duties, functionally they are discharging same functions and duties and they are also interchangeable and inter transferable. In this view of the matter the following note inserted on 5.4.76 make it clear that experience gained prior to degree is as good as the experience gained thereafter and the petitioner has been wrongly deprived of the year 1977. Note is reproduced as under : "Note : Prior to the date the cadre of Junior Engineers has been separated as Sub Engineers and Junior Engineers, the service as Engineering Subordinates or Junior Engineer shall count and experience or service in view of Rule 28 as will hithertofore." 5. In view of the foregoing observations, the petitioner's case deserves to be accepted for the year 1978, because in view of the amendment dated, 5.4 76 the note inserted below the schedule quoted above makes it clear that three years experience after Degree is not essential. The rules cannot be construed to lead in to anomalous situation and discrimination. In view of the foregoing observations, the petitioner's case deserves to be accepted for the year 1978, because in view of the amendment dated, 5.4 76 the note inserted below the schedule quoted above makes it clear that three years experience after Degree is not essential. The rules cannot be construed to lead in to anomalous situation and discrimination. If there is no difference in the quality and nature of experience gained before the degree and after the degree, it cannot be interpreted that three years experience as Junior Engineer should mean three years experience after degree because, the note itself saves this situation. Col. 5 of Schedule against the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) is as follows :JUNIOR POSTS : Asstt. Engineer B. E. (Civil) (Civil or qualifications declared equivalent by Government with 3 years service as Junior Engineer (Civil) or if Diploma Holder (Civil) from a recognised institution with 10 years requisite experience as Sub Engineer (Civil) or Matri culate) with 15 years requisite experience as Sub Engineer (Civil). Note : Prior to the date the cadre of Junior Engineer has been separated as Sub Engineers, the service as Engineering Subordinate or Junior Engineers shall count as experience or service in view of Rule 28 as hitherto fore. 6. Thus, the service rendered as Sub Engineer is at par with Junior Engineer and hence, the petitioner's case for promotion was-to be considered for the vacancies available after the year 1978. 7. In my opinion, the judgment of G. C. Mathur's case fully applies in the present case in the light of the note appended to the Schedule to the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Building and Road Branch) Rules, 1954. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the promotion case of the petitioner against the vacancies which were available in the year 1978 and thereafter, by treating the petitioner to be eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineer. If the petitioner is found suitable for such promotion with retrospective effect, he should be given such retrospective promotion with all consequential benefits. This exercise mast be undertaken as i completed within six months of the submission of certified copy of this order.Costs made easy.Writ Petition Allowed. *******