JUDGMENT 1. - The only point in the present appeal is in respect of interpretation of entry of Schedule VI 'Ministerial' in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board (Service) Bye-Laws, 1977. The entry No. 8 of the aforesaid schedule VI provides that the post of UDC is to be filled in 100% by promotion, and the minimum qualification and experience required for promotion to the post of UDC is that the person must have five years experience as LDC except graduate with three years service as LDC, The dispute is with regard to the words 'except graduate with 3 years service as LDC. According to the appellant if a person has served as LDC before graduation that period is also required to be taken into consideration while according to the respondents the person should serve for three years as graduate only then he can take the benefit of the latter part of the minimum qualifications and experience required for promotion. The post of UDC is to be filled in 100% by promotion from amongst LDC's having 5 years service and three years in case of graduates LDCs. The eligibility for promotion is to be determined on the 1st day of April of the year of selection. The appellant has claimed seniority on the ground that after acquiring the degree of graduation in Arts in 1978 he should have been treated as eligible for promotion to the post of UDC as the period of three years' service as LDC had already been completed by then. Learned Single Judge found that the appellant had not disclosed the fact that other respondents except the respondent No. 8 were also possessing the qualification of graduation when they entered in the service of the Board as LDC. On merits also it was found that the respondents had completed three years' service and were graduates and therefore they were eligible for promotion to the post of LDC on April 1, 1978 much prior to the appellant and since the respondent No. 8 had also completed 7 years' service as LDC in the year 1977 he was eligible for promotion as UDC. 2. We have considered over the matter and heard arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties. Reliance has been placed on the case of G.C. Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2. We have considered over the matter and heard arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties. Reliance has been placed on the case of G.C. Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 837/1983, decided by this court on November 29, 1988 wherein the dispute was with regard to the promotion from the post of Junior Engineers to the post of Asstt. Engineers and the requisite experience required was as under:"Junior Posts" Asstt. Engineer (Civil) B.E. (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 Matriculates with 15 years requisite experience as Sub Engineer (Civil) Note: Prior to the date the cadre of Junior Engineers has been separated as Sub Engineers the service as Engineering Subordinate or Junior Engineers shall count as experience or service in view of Rule 20 as hither to fore. The rule mentioned above was inserted on April 5, 1976 and therefore it was contended that the experience gained prior to the Degree shall be as good as the experience gained thereafter and the petitioner cannot be deprived of the said benefit in the year 1977 after the said amendment. This court came to the conclusion that in view of the amendment dated April 5, 1976 it is clear that three years' experience after degree is not essential. This judgment was followed in the case of Dharam Veer v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1992 (2) WLC-297. 3. In the case of N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India AIR 1992 Supreme Court 564 , the matter was with regard, to appointment by promotion of Section Officers (Junior Engineers) for appointment as Asstt. Engineers. The qualification as prescribed under the rules was as under: 1. Section Officers possessing a recognised Degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent with three years' service in the grade failing which Section Officers holding Diploma in Civil Engineering with six years' service in the grade-50% 2. Section Officers possessing a recognised Diploma in Civil Engineering with six years service in the grade-50%. Section Officers possessing a recognised Degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent with three years' service in the grade failing which Section Officers holding Diploma in Civil Engineering with six years' service in the grade-50% 2. Section Officers possessing a recognised Diploma in Civil Engineering with six years service in the grade-50%. Rule 11 provides for recruitment by promotion from the grade of Section Officers and the qualifications were laid down under Rule 7, It was interpreted by the Apex Court that the entire scheme of the rules indicates that the period of three years' service in the grade required for Degree-holders according to Rule 11 as the qualification for promotion in that category must mean three years' service in the grade as a Degree-holder and therefore that period of three years can commence only from the date of obtaining the Degree and not earlier. The service in the grade as a Diploma-holder prior to obtaining the Degree cannot be counted as service in the grade with a Degree for the purpose of three years' service as a Degree-holder. 4. In the case of M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 267 , the controversy was as to whether the seniority amongst the diploma-holder Sub-Engineers who acquired the degree of graduation in engineering during the period of service qualifying them for promotion in eight years to the post of Asstt. Engineer is to be determined from their date of appointment on the post or from the date of acquiring educational qualification. There was no specific rule governing such a situation and as a matter of practice, the State Government was applying the principle of counting the seniority from the date of continuous officiation irrespective of the date on which such diploma-holder Sub Engineers acquired degree of graduation in Engineering. In these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the seniority is to be counted from the date of appointment and not from the date of acquiring the required educational qualification. 5. The ground on which this appeal has been filed is that the experience-which has been gained by a LDC is same as when he was not a graduate and when he acquired the qualification of graduation. 5. The ground on which this appeal has been filed is that the experience-which has been gained by a LDC is same as when he was not a graduate and when he acquired the qualification of graduation. The incentive to acquire higher qualification was for the better administration and therefore according to the learned Counsel for the appellant when the period of three years itself is taken for obtaining degree of graduation during which the candidate was serving that experience cannot be excluded. It has also been alleged that number of persons who were not graduates were given promotion taking into consideration even the period of experience prior to obtaining degree. 6. The appellant and the respondents Nos. 2 to 8 were initially appointed as LDC on temporary basis and were subsequently confirmed on the said post. In the judgment of the learned Single Judge it is mentioned that the appellant and the respondent No. 8 were non-graduate and other respondent clerks were graduates at the time of entry in the service. The appellant entered in the service on September 11, 1974 and graduated in Arts in January 1978. Bye-law 21 of the Bye-laws of 1977 provides the criteria, eligibility and procedure for promotion and under its Clause (4) it has been provided that: Selection for promotion from lowest post of category of posts in the Service to the next higher post or category of posts the service shall be made solely on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the persons who have put in at least five years service unless a different period is prescribed in these bye-laws on the first day of the month of April of the year of selection on the post or category of post from which selection is to be made. Bye-laws 24(4) provides that the seniority inter se of persons appointed to posts by promotion shall follow the order in which their names have been placed in the list prepared under bye-laws 21. 7. The post of UDC is to be filled 100% by promotion from amongst LDCs having 5 years service and three years service in case of graduates. The eligibility for promotion is to be determined on the 1st day of April of the year of selection. 7. The post of UDC is to be filled 100% by promotion from amongst LDCs having 5 years service and three years service in case of graduates. The eligibility for promotion is to be determined on the 1st day of April of the year of selection. The appellant has claimed seniority on the ground that after acquiring the degree of graduation in Arts in 1978 in the month of January, he should have been treated as eligible for promotion to the post of UDC as period of three years' service as LDC had already been completed by then. Learned Single Judge found that the appellant had not disclosed the fact that the respondents No. 2 to 8 were already possessing the qualification of graduation when they entered in the service of the Board as LDCs. On merit also it was found that the respondents had completed three years service as graduates and therefore they were eligible for promotion to the post of UDC on April 1, 1978 much prior to the appellant and since the respondent No. 8 had also completed 7 years' service as LDC in the year 1977, he was eligible for promotion as UDC. 8. The decisions which have been cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant are based on a language which has differently been given by way of note or there was a consistent practice being followed for considering the date of appointment as the starting point for the graduates who acquired the said qualification subsequently. In the present case the practice of the respondent Board has not been established by any evidence on record. Certain documents were tried to be referred at the time of hearing of arguments in the appeal but the same cannot be taken into consideration in view of the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that all the respondents except respondent No. 8 were graduates at the time of their initial appointment and the respondent No. 8 also acquired the experience of 7 years when he was promoted. 9. Now coming to the merit, whether the period of experience prior to obtaining the graduation could be taken into consideration, we are of the opinion that unless the rule specifically so provides the words 'graduate with % years service' could be interpreted to mean that the person should have experience of three years as a graduate. 9. Now coming to the merit, whether the period of experience prior to obtaining the graduation could be taken into consideration, we are of the opinion that unless the rule specifically so provides the words 'graduate with % years service' could be interpreted to mean that the person should have experience of three years as a graduate. On the plain reading of the entry we are of the opinion that the eligibility of the graduates and non graduates by prescribing different number of years of experience could be that a graduate who joined the service had already spent three years in obtaining graduation and therefore the benefit of the education has to be given to him. Similarly, if the degree of graduation has been obtained within a year of service, or the candidate may be studying in graduation while joining the service, then it will be only from the date of obtaining the qualification of graduation which will be the starting point for counting experience. The normal rule is that one must have five years experience and it is only an exception in case of a graduate that rule is relaxed to three years. The degree of graduation whether obtained before or after the joining of service has to be considered on the same footing and therefore for avoiding the plea of discrimination, the benefit has been given to both types of graduates who are graduates at the time of joining the service as well as those who acquired the said qualification after joining the service and they must complete the period of three years experience of service after graduation as LDCf or promotion to the post of UDC. A person who is not a graduate is by itself a different class and can not take the benefit of the same which is available to graduates only. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the period anterior to the obtaining of the qualification cannot be counted for the purpose of experience as a graduate and the entry in the schedule has to be interpreted that according to the normal rule the person should have five years experience and in case of graduates the period of experience is reduced to three years only after the acquiring the qualification of graduation. 10. Consequently the special appeal has no merit. It is hereby dismissed.Special Appeal Dismissed. *******