U.L. Bhat, C.J. — Respondents 6 to 8 in Civil Rule No.459 of 1991 have filed this writ appeal against the judgment of Shishak, J. allowing the writ petition and the subsequent judgment dismissing the review petition filed by them. We will refer to the parties according to their rank in the writ petition. We have heard Shri Th. Priyananda Singh, learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8, Shri T. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel for the first respondent (petitioner in the writ petition), Shri Irabot Singh, learned Government Advocate, Manipur and Shri A.Nilmani Singh and other counsel who appeared for other parties in certain other cases, who are also interested in the questions involved in this appeal. 2. Petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 joined the erstwhile PW Department of Manipur. The Department was subsequently bifurcated and they came to the PHE Department. Petitioner was recruited as Section Officer Grade I (Overseer) initially, was promoted as Ad hoc Assistant Engineer on 20.11.1970, regularised initially with effect from 21.8.1975 and subsequently with effect from 20.11.1970. He was promoted Ad hoc Executive Engineer on 18.6.1979 regularised initially with effect from 27.9.1985 and subsequently with effect from 26.12.1979. The last order of regularisation has been declared void by the Government. The regularisation with effect from 26.12.1979 as well as the subsequent orders are challenged in separate writ petitions. When the petitioner entered service he was holding a diploma in Civil Engineering. He passed Sections A and B of AMIE examination (which is recognised as equivalent to degree in Engineering) on 4.10.1989. 3. Sixth respondent is a degree-holder in Mechanical Engineering. He was appointed Ad hoc Assistant Engineer on direct recruitment quota on 26.10.1966 regularised with effect from 15.6.1971. He was promoted as Ad hoc Executive Engineer with effect from 27.4.1979, which was regularised initially with effect from 27.9.1985 and subsequently with effect from 26.12.1979. Regarding the latter regularisation the position is same as that of petitioner. He was promoted as Ad hoc Superintending Engineer from 27.7.1991 and the DPC which met on 25.6.1983 has selected him regularly for the post. Seventh respondent is a degree holder in Civil Engineering. He was appointed Ad hoc Assistant Engineer on 4.11.1970, which was regularised with effect from that date. He was promoted as Ad hoc Superintending Engineer from 27.7.1991 and the DPC which met on 25.6.1983 has selected him regularly for the post. Seventh respondent is a degree holder in Civil Engineering. He was appointed Ad hoc Assistant Engineer on 4.11.1970, which was regularised with effect from that date. He was promoted Ad hoe Executive Engineer on 27.4.1979, which was initially regularised with effect from 27.9.1985 and subsequently regularised with effect from 26.12 1979 as in the case of petitioner and sixth respondent. Eighth respondent is a degree holder in Civil Engineering. He was appointed Ad hoc Assistant Engineer from 1.12.1972, which was regularised with effect from 1.9.1972. He was promoted Ad hoc Executive Engineer on 18.6.1979 which was initially regularised on 27.9.1985 and subsequently regularised with effect from 26.12.1979 as in the case of other parties. Petiti­oner and respondents 6 to 8 rank in the final seniority list as on 1.1.1986 as Nos. 8, 7, 13 and 17 respectively. Their ranks in the tentative seniority list (under objection) as on 1.9.1991 are 5, 3, 4 and 6 respectively. 4. Petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 are regular Executive Engineers. They are seeking promotion to the next higher post of Superintending Engineer. While petitioner was not appointed Superintending Engineer on ad-hoc basis, respondents 6 to 8 were so appointed with effect from 27.7.1991. DPC was constituted for selection for regular appointment to the two vacancies of Superintending Engineer which arose in 1991 and one prospective vacancy in 1993. At that stage petitioner filed the writ petition alleging that he has been serving as Executive Engineer for 11 years and has passed Parts I and II of AMIE examination from a recognised institution, which is treated as equiva­lent to a degree in Engineering and therefore he is eligible for promotion but the Government does not intend to consider him and submit his name to the DPC on the ground that eligibility requires six years service as Executive Engineer after obtaining degree in Engineering or equivalent qualification and that he possessed less than six years service as Executive Engineer after 1989. Respondents 6 to 8 being originally degree holders have the requisite experie­nce/qualification. Respondents 6 to 8 being originally degree holders have the requisite experie­nce/qualification. Learned Single Judge considered the Rules of Recruitment for the post of Superintending Engineer issued in 1977 and came to the conclusion that the two eligibility criteria of being holder of degree or equivalent qualification and six years service in the grade of Executive Engineer are independent criteria and for the purpose of reckoning service criteria, service as Executive Engineer before acquiring degree or equivalent qualification could also be counted. This declaration of the law in the presence of the State of Manipur would be binding on the State and the State is compelled therefore to treat the petitioner as eligible for consideration. Respondents 6 to 8 have preferred the appeal challenging the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge and contending that sis years service as Executive Engineer must be reckoned from the date on which the incumbent has acquired degree or equivalent qualification and such service before acquisition of degree or equivalent qualification cannot be reckoned. 5. Recruitment Rules have prescribed degree or equivalent qualification or diploma in the concerned branch as qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (Section Officer Grade I, Overseer). According to the Recruitment Rules relating to the post of Assistant Engineer, recruitment can be made by direct recruitment or by promotion. For direct recruitment degree or equivalent qualification or diploma is prescribed as qualification. According to the 1969 Rules, degree holder Junior Engineers with three years' service and diploma holder Junior Engineers with five years' service are eligible to be considered for promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers. 6. According to Recruitment Rules of 1973, degree holder Assistant Engineers with seven years regular service in the Grade and diploma holder Assistant Engineers with eight years regular service in the Grade were eligible for promotion (by selection by DPC) to the posts of Executive Engineers. New Rules were introduced in 1986 altering the service requirement to six years and nine years in the case of degree holders and diploma holders respectively. A new requirement was introduced for diploma holders who pass Section A and B of AM IE examination of Institute of Engineers (India), namely six years service from date of passing the examination or seven years service in *he Grade, whichever is shorter. 7. Recruitment for the post of Superintending Engineer is governed by 1977 Rules. A new requirement was introduced for diploma holders who pass Section A and B of AM IE examination of Institute of Engineers (India), namely six years service from date of passing the examination or seven years service in *he Grade, whichever is shorter. 7. Recruitment for the post of Superintending Engineer is governed by 1977 Rules. The posts have to be filled up by promotion on selection. The feeder category is described as follows :- "Executive Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) and Surveyor of Works possessing degree in Civil/Mechanical Engineering or its equivalent from a recognised institution with 6 (six) years regular service in the grade.'' There is no dispute that Parts I and II of AMIE examination (which the petitioner has possessed) is recognised as equivalent to degree. There is also no dispute that petitioner has more than six years' regular service as Executive Engineer. 8. Though the appellants contended in the memorandum of appeal that their counsel was not heard by the learned Single Judge, this contention is not pressed since the question involved is one of understanding the Recruitment Rules and we have heard at great length all the learned counsel appearing in the appeal and the counsel of other Engineers involved in the other cases who are interested in this question. 9. Shri Th. Priyananda Singh contended that for promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer the relevant Recruitment Rules have maintained a distinction between holders of degree and equivalent qualification on the one hand and holders of diploma on the other and this is clearly brought out in the Rules regarding promotion to the post of Execu­tive Engineer. Rules have maintained a distinction between persons who were originally degree holders and those who secure degree or equivalent qualifi­cation while in services as can be seen in the qualification prescribed for promotion to the category of Superintending Engineer. It is clear, according to learned counsel that the experience gained by a diploma holder Executive Engineer is inferior in quality to that of a degree holder Executive Engineer. The intention of rule making authority while prescribing six years' regular service in the grade is to lay down that the six years' service must be after securing degree or equivalent qualification. The intention of rule making authority while prescribing six years' regular service in the grade is to lay down that the six years' service must be after securing degree or equivalent qualification. If Executive Engineers with six years service as degree holders and those with six years' service together as holders of diploma and degree are to be treated as in the same class. it will amount to treating unequals as equals and would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Interpretation which favours constitutionality of the provision must be favoured. Shri A. Nilamani Singh, who supported the appellants contended that there are three grades among the Executive Engineers, namely, those who possessed degree or equivalent qualification initially, those who possessed only diploma and those who possessed diploma when they became Executive Engineers but acquire degree of equivalent qualification while serving as Executive Engineers and the use of the expression 'grade' in the provision "six years' regular service in the grade" indicates that the rule-making authority has indicated one of the grades among the Executive Engineers, namely those who possess degree six years prior to the date when the question of eligibility arises. Learned counsel also submitted that classification on the basis of qualification is known to service law. 10. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner rebutted the above contenti­ons. According to him, all Executive Engineers form one class and there are no different grades among them. All Executive Engineers from whatever source they are promoted to the post, become Executive Engineers of one class with the same status, performing the same functions, bearing the same responsibilities and enjoying the same scale of pay and no classification has been made for further promotion. While diploma holders are treated as in­eligible for further promotion, those Executive Engineers with six years service as such, who possess degree or equivalent qualification on the relevant date, namely the date on which vacancy arises are rendered eligible by the Rules. Learned counsel also contended that since all Executive Engineers are mem­bers of an integrated cadre, further classification for the purpose of promotion based on qualification will be unconstitutional and the Court must read the rule in such a manner as to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 11. Learned counsel also contended that since all Executive Engineers are mem­bers of an integrated cadre, further classification for the purpose of promotion based on qualification will be unconstitutional and the Court must read the rule in such a manner as to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 11. It would be useful at the outset to refer to certain principles which the Court should bear in mind in understanding statutory provisions or rules. If the language of the provision is plain, clear and unambiguous, the langu­age should prevail, the question of interpretation arises only when there is an ambiguity in the language used or when there is an apparent inconsistency between the particular provision and the other provisions or the scheme of the statute or Rules. It is not the function of the Court normally to add or take away words from statutory provision. 12. In Dr. Asim Kumar Bose vs. Union of India & others, AIK. 1983 3C 509, the Supreme Court considering some of the provisions contained in Central Health Service Rules (1963) observed : "...must be interpreted in a broad and liberal sense as it would otherwise work great injustice to persons in Specialists Grade II like the appellant who, while holding a non-clinical post in a teaching hospital like the Irwin Hospital, has been actually teaching the students of the Maulana Azad Medical College to which it is affiliated." Interpretation of recruitment rules should not be too technical. See Uma Sbaukar Sharnia vs. Union of India & others, (1980) 3 SCC 202 . 13. We may next advert to other decisions relied on by the learned coun­sel appearing for the various parties in regard to the classification of persons in service on the basis of qualification for the purpose of promotion and allied matters. Prescription of two grades in the same cadre of Tracers based on possession of qualification of passing the HSLC examination and of non possession of qualification, with different scales of pay can be sustained on the ground that higher educational qualification is a relevant consideration for fixing higher scale of pay. See Staff of Mysore & another vs P.Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349 . See Staff of Mysore & another vs P.Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349 . Prescription of post graduate degree in the particular specialty for promotion to the post of Professor or Additional Professor in Medical College is sustainable on the ground that it is not a classification without reference to the objective sought to be achieved. See Union of India & others vs. Dr. (Mrs) SB Kohli & another, AIR 1973 SC 811 . Classification of Assistant Engineers into diploma holders and degree holders for promotion as Executive Engineers is valid on the ground that it could not be held to rest on any unreal or unreasonable basis and is made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering Services and that being so, the classification is clearly correlated to it for higher educational qualifications are at least presumptive evidence of a higher mental equipment and as it does not rest on any fortuitous circumstances. See State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa & others, AIR 1974 SC 1 . Classification of graduate and non-graduate supervisors for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers by prescribing a higher quota for graduates has been upheld on the basis that this differentiation was of long vintage in the State and the graduate supervisors have always been treated as a distinct and separate class from the non graduate supervisors for a long time and they have never been integrated into one class even from the point of view of pay scales. See Mohammad Shujat Ali & others vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1974 SC 1 631. Direct recruit Deputy Engineers and promotee Deputy Engineers have been held to belong to a single integrated cadre though drawn from different sources since they discharge identical functions, bear similar responsibilities and acquire an equal amount of experience in their respective assignments. It was also held that the benefit given to the direct recruits of one year's period of training and one year's period of probation for the purpose of seniority has co nexus with efficiency in public service and is based on the fortuitous circumstance of confirmation and was invalid See SB Patwardhan & another vs. State of Maharashtra & others, AIR 1977 SC 2051 . la a case where the Rules provided for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment as well as promotion, the plea or graduate Engineers in the feeder category to give them quota like diploma holders out of the prom­otion quota was rejected on the ground that this could not be done. That was because the Junior Engineers had to perform similar kind of work and bear the same responsibilities irrespective of their qualifications. See HC Sharma & others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & others, AIR 1983 SC 881 . Supreme Court also struck down the Recruitment Rules which provide for ratio dividing the quota of promotion to the post of Second Grade Excise Inspector between graduate Preventive Officers and non-graduate Preventive Officers as violative of Articles 14 and 16. That is because according to the conditions of employment there is no distinction between graduate and non-graduate officers and for all material purposes they are effectively treated as equivalent. See Abdul Bashers & others vs. Karunakaran & others, AIR 1989 SC 1624 . Where recruitment to promotion cadre is to be made from graduates and diploma holders, requirement of longer period of experience of the diploma holder to be eligible for promotion may not be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. See Roop chand Adlakha & others vs. Delhi Development Authority & others, (1989) Supp (1) SCC 116. Classification of degree holder and diploma holder Executive Engineess for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer is not violative of Articles 14 and 16. See Shamkant Narayan Deshpande vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others, AIR 1993 SC 1173 . 14. It is thus settled that there could be valid classification of degree holder and diploma holder officers on the basis of their qualification for the purpose of their promotion to the next higher cadre. The dispute in this appeal is not about the principle as such. The dispute is whether the statutory rule reflects the principle or not. It is a matter of understanding the rule. The dispute in this appeal is not about the principle as such. The dispute is whether the statutory rule reflects the principle or not. It is a matter of understanding the rule. For this purpose, while learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8 places strong reliance on the decision in N. Suresh Nathan & another vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1992 SC 564 , learned counsel for the first respondent (writ petitioner) places strong reliance on the decision in MB Joshi & others vs. Sathish Kumar Pandey & others, AIR 1993 SC 267 . The former decision has been considered in the latter decision. In Suresh Nathan's case ( AIR 1992 SC 564 ) Recruitment Rules for post of Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department, Pondicheny came up for consideration. Degree qualification or diploma qualification with three years' professional experience is prescribed for direct recruitment. For promotion of Section Officers (Junior Engineers), qualifi­cation prescribed is degree or equivalent with three years' service in the grade, failing which diploma with six years' service in the grade (50%). The dispute was whether diploma holder Junior Engineer who obtains a degree or equivalent while in service becomes eligible for appointment by promotion on completion of three years' service including therein the period of service prior to obtaining the degree, or whether three years' service has to be reckoned from the date on which he obtains the degree. The parties admitted that the long standing practice in the Department was, in the case of diploma holders who obtained degree during service, period of three years in the grade for eligibility for promotion commences from the date of obtaining the degree and earlier period of service as diploma holder is not counted. The Union Public Service Commission also shared the view. The question posed was whether this construction of the provision in the Rules based on long practice was tenable or requires upsetting it. The Court indicated that if the past practice is based on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the Rules, upsetting the same now would not be appropriate. The qualification prescribed for direct recruitment indicated that degree is equated to diploma with three years' professional experience. The Court indicated that if the past practice is based on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the Rules, upsetting the same now would not be appropriate. The qualification prescribed for direct recruitment indicated that degree is equated to diploma with three years' professional experience. Junior Engineers for the purpose of promotion were divided into two categories, one of degree holders with three years' service in the grade and the other of diploma holders with six years' service in the grade. The Rule regarding promotion has equated the degree to diploma with three years' professional experience. The rule also provides that if degree holders with three years' service in the grade are not available in sufficient numbers, diploma holders with six5' years' service in the grade may be con­sidered. The entire scheme indicated that the period of three years' service in the grade required for degree holders as the qualification for promotion to that category means three years' service in the grade as degree holder and not any period of service in grade as diploma holder prior to obtaining the degree. Supreme Court further indicated that this understanding is in consonance with past practice followed consistently and tenable. Tribunal was therefore held not to be justified in taking a contrary view and unsettling the settled practice. 15. The decision in Suresh Nathan's Case ( AIR 1992 SC 564 ) came up for consideration in MB Joshi's Case ( AIR 1993 SC 267 ) which had to consider the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980 to the extent it related to promotion of Sub-Engineers to the posts of Assistant Engineers. The rule provided minimum period for Sub Engineers to qualify for promotion to the next higher post as 12 years for diploma holders and 8 years for such Sub-Engineers who obtain degree in the course of service for the promotional quota of 50%, The 50% promotional quota is further sub-divided among the diploma holder Sub-Engineers completing 12 years of service, Draftsman and Head Draftsman completing 12 years of service and graduate Sub-Engineers completing 8 years of service. The Government had been applying the principle of counting seniority of Graduate Sub-Engineers from the date of their continuous officiation irre­spective of the date on which a diploma holder acquired the degree. The Government had been applying the principle of counting seniority of Graduate Sub-Engineers from the date of their continuous officiation irre­spective of the date on which a diploma holder acquired the degree. The Tribunal held that seniority of diploma holders acquiring degree for inclusion in the gradation list of Sub-Engineers should be counted from the dates of their acquisition of graduation or equivalent degree and not from the date of their initial entry as Sub-Engineers, and that applicants having secured degrees prior to respondents 3 to 9 will rank higher in the gradation list. The Tribunal directed a special DPC to be convened to consider the applicants for promotion and if found suitable, to promote them and give them seniority over respondents 3 to 9. The question of course was related to determi­nation of seniority, which was no; governed by any specific rule. The gradation list had been prepared on the basis of length of service in the cadre of Sub-Engineer. The requirement of service for diploma holders was i educed from 12 years to 8 years in the case of those who obtain degree or equivalent during continuance of service as an incentive to improve the qualification. The Court referred to Suresh Nathan's case ( AIR 1992 SC 564 ) and further pointed out that the scheme of the rules in the earlier case was entirely different from the scheme of the rules in the later case. The rule in Suresh Nathan's case ( AIR 1992 SC 564 ) provided in explicit terms the basis of equation and gave rise to the possible interpretation that period of three years' service should be counted from the date of obtaining the degree; but the scheme was entirely different in MB Joshi's case ( AIR 1993 SC 267 . The Court pointed out that the Rules do not contemplate any equivalence of any period of service with qualification of possessing degree as provided in the earlier case and held that the Rules in question clearly provided that diploma holders having obtained the degree while in service shall be eligible for promotion after 8 years' service. Accepting the contrary contention would defeat the very scheme and the purpose of giving incentive of adding educa­tional qualification by diploma holders while in service. Accepting the contrary contention would defeat the very scheme and the purpose of giving incentive of adding educa­tional qualification by diploma holders while in service. It was also pointed out that the Government itself had been adopting this practice and in the absence of any specific rule, the seniority amongst persons holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the basis of the length of service and not any other fortuitous circumstances. 16. We have to examine the rule in the present case in the light of the above principles. Degree holders and diploma holders are eligible to be appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Section Officer Grade I, Overseer). Appointment to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer is to be made by direct recruitment and promotion. The same qualifications are prescribed for direct recruitment. For the purpose of promotion a distinction exists between degree holder Junior Engineers and diploma holder Junior Engineers regarding service requirement. It is three years in one case and five years in the other case. The difference is of two years' service. In the old Rules for promotion to the next higher post of Executive Engineer the distinction continued between degree holders and diploma holders, the difference maintained beiug one year's regular service in the grade. It not therefore be said that there has been any consistent equation of degree and diploma with a particular number of years' service. The difference which was maintained for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was narrowed down when it came to the promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The 1986 Rules governing the post of Executive Engineer provide for service requirements of six years and nine years respectively, thereby widening the gap to three years. A new category of diploma holders who pats AMIE examination while in service has been introduced. They should have six years' service from the date of passing the examination or seven years in the grade, whichever is shorter. The 1986 Rules throw a flood of light on the intention and modality adopted by the rule-making authority. The rule-making authority was quite conscious that service requirement could be prescribed in two different ways. There could be the requirement of particular number of years, service after the date of passing the examination. There could be the simple requirement of particular number of years service in the grade. The rule-making authority was quite conscious that service requirement could be prescribed in two different ways. There could be the requirement of particular number of years, service after the date of passing the examination. There could be the simple requirement of particular number of years service in the grade. The 1986 Rules indicate the awareness of the rule-making authority of this distinction. 17. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Superintending Engineer are significant for three reasons. Mere diploma holder Executive Engineers are ineligible for promotion. Eligibility is conferred on Executive Engineers possessing degree or its equivalent from a recognised institution with six years' regular service in the grade. In other words eligibility is conferred on all Executive Engineers who possessed degree originally and became Executive Engineers as degree holder Assistant Engineers with seven years' regular service in the grade and diploma holder Assistant Engineers who became Executive Engineers after eight years' regular service in the grade but acquired degree or equivalent qualification while in service. In the case of both, six years' regular service in the grade is insisted upon. The rule does not prescribe different periods of service for original degree holders and diploma holders who acquire degree subsequently. The distinction regarding the period of service requirement which exist in the Rules governing the cadre of Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers has not been incorporated in the Rules governing promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. There is no pre-existing practice pleaded by any of the parties. That is because it is only in recent time that a few diploma holder Executive Engineers acquired higher qualification by passing AMIE examination. In other words, the Rules classify Executive Engineers into three categories, namely, (1) those who had degree qualification when they became Executive Engineers, (2) those who had diploma qualification at the relevant time and did not pass any higher examination and (3) those who had diploma qualification at the relevant time and passed higher examination while continuing in service as Executive Engineers. The second category has been excluded from being considered to be eligible for promotion. Categories (1) and (3) are treated as being in one class and rendered eligible on condition that they have six years' regular service in the grade. 18. The second category has been excluded from being considered to be eligible for promotion. Categories (1) and (3) are treated as being in one class and rendered eligible on condition that they have six years' regular service in the grade. 18. There is a contention that the expression 'grade' has been used with reference to the categories referred to above and must be taken to mean the category of Executive Engineers having the higher qualification and therefore ''six years regular service in the grade" would mean six years regular service as Executive Engineer after acquiring the higher qualification. 19. A 'grade' is a step in a series; a rank. It is a measure of position as well as salary. See, page 328, Volume ISA, "Words and Phrases Permanent Edition," West Publishing C. (1956). Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the connotation of the expression 'grade' in Hari Nandan Sharan Bhatnagar vs. SN Dikshit & another, AIR 1970 SC 40 . Appellant in that case was appointed as Upper Division Assistant (formerly known as Superior Service Assistant) in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat Uttar Pradesh. First respondent was a Treasurer in the same office. Appellant claimed to be the seniormost eligible, person for promotion to the post of Superintendent and was agreed that his junior was so promoted. The Rule provided for promo­tion "from the grade of superior service assistants in the Council Department" with due regard to seniority and fitness to perform duties. The Rule required that the assistant most fitted for the post is to be appointed. If no suitable assistant is available Wt promotion from amongst the grade of superior Service Assistants in the Council Department, recruitment may, as a special case, be made from outside. It is argued that "grade of superior service assistants in the Council Department'' included only those persons whose names were borne on the roll of Upper Division Assistants. The scale of pay of Upper Division Assistants, Translators, Reference Clerk, Treasurers, Stenographer to Secretary and Assistant Librarian was the same with same efficiency bars. It is argued that "grade of superior service assistants in the Council Department'' included only those persons whose names were borne on the roll of Upper Division Assistants. The scale of pay of Upper Division Assistants, Translators, Reference Clerk, Treasurers, Stenographer to Secretary and Assistant Librarian was the same with same efficiency bars. The High Court took the view that the expression 'grade' in the Rule was suggestive of status and did not refer to a class or a particular class and since all categories referred to above were working in the same scale of pay in the Department, although holding posts with different designations, they shall be deemed to be holding posts in the same grade, because their rank in the department will be the same and equal to one another. The Supreme Court agreed with this view holding that under the Rule choice was not limited to Upper Division Assistants but extended to others who are in the same grade, that is to say, enjoying the same scales of pay and all officials of the Secretariat holding posts in the same scale of pay as Upper Division Assistants were eligible for promotion. 20. There is nothing in the Recruitment Rules governing the post of Superintending Engineer indicating that the expression 'grade' while mentioning "six years regular service in the grade" has been used in any technical or limited sense or indicating that it refers to Executive Engineers who were originally degree holders The 'grade' referred to is the grade of Executive Engineers who are in the same scale of pay, enjoying the same status, per­forming the same functions and bearing the same responsibilities. There is absolutely nothing in the Rule warranting a narrower meaning to be ascribed to the expression 'grade'. We therefore agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that service qualification required is six years' service in the grade of Executive Engineers, that is, as Executive Engineers and the period has to be counted from the date of commencement of service as Executive Engineer and not from the date of acquisition of the higher qualification. 21. It is not disputed that writ petitioner has been excluded from consideration on the ground that since he acquired higher qualification only in 1989, he has not become eligible for promotion to the higher post of Superintending Engineer. 21. It is not disputed that writ petitioner has been excluded from consideration on the ground that since he acquired higher qualification only in 1989, he has not become eligible for promotion to the higher post of Superintending Engineer. He is entitled to be considered for the vacancies which arose in 1991 itself since by that time he had more than six years regular service in the grade. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out by learned Single Judge, by virtue of Note 1 to the Rule he should have been so consi­dered. Note 1 reads thus : "Note 1 : Where a person is considered for such appointment all persons possessing the requisite qualifications and who are senior to him in the grade shall also be considered irrespective of the fact whether or not they fulfill the requirement as to minimum periods of qualifying service for purpose of promotion mentioned above." 22. There is no dispute that Executive Engineers who were originally junior to the writ petitioner have been considered on the ground that they had requisite qualifications. By virtue of the Note also petitioner was entitled to be considered. Even if the Government wanted to proceed on the basis that he did not have the minimum period of qualifying service for promotion. 23. We may notice that retrospective regularisation granted to the parties to this case and certain others in the post of Executive Engineers with effect from 26.12.1979 is under challenge in some writ petitions which we have already heard. Naturally, the decisions in those petitions will also have a bearing on the question of the rights of parties. 24. It is stated at the Bar that Note 1 to the Recruitment Rules is under challenge. But this statement has been denied by the opposite side. 25. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.