V. K. Khanna, C.J.- This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil RuleNo.2652 of 1991 dated 15.11.95. 2. We have heard Mr. C. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. P. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/respondents. 3. The brief controversy which is involved in the present appeal is as to whether the petitioners/respondents are entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Electrical Inspector under the Chief Electrical Adviser to the Govt of Assam and whether they possessed the requisite qualification for that as has been prescribed under the statutory rules i.e., the Indian Electricity Rules, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Rules. 4. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the petitioners did not possess a Diploma in Electrical Engineering and the training which they have taken in an Industrial Training Institute is equivalent only to a Trade Certificate Course. However, the learned Single Judge has interpreted Rule 4B of the Rules which has been quoted in the judgment as making the petitioners eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Electrical Inspector. It may also be pertinent to note that in the Civil Rule, the opinion of the Chief Electrical Adviser, Assam in his letter dated 30.1.87 (Annexure G to the Civil Rule) to the Govt of Assam in connection with upgrading the post of Assistant Electrical Inspector and Sub Assistant Electrical Inspector and filling up the post of Deputy Electrical Inspector by departmental promotion has not been disputed. The letter of the Chief Electrical Adviser has been quoted in extenso in the judgment under appeal. A bare perusal of the letter would show that the case has been recommended by the Chief Electrical Adviser for upgrading the post of Assistant Electrical Inspector and Sub-Assistant Electrical Inspector to the post of Deputy Electrical Inspector. 5. Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that a bare perusal of Rule 4B of the Rules would show that the relaxation can only be granted in respect of the experience and not in respect of the academic qualifications which are required for appointment to a post of officer in order to assist an Electrical Inspector and that the post has to be filled up by direct recruitment and not by promotion. A bare perusal of Rule 4B would show that the education qualifications which are .required by a person to be appointed as an officer to assist the Electrical Inspector is either that he should possess a Degree in Electrical Engineering or its equivalent from any recognised college or Institution; or he should possess a Diploma in Electrical Engineering or its equivalent from any recognised Institution (emphasis supplied). Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents has urged before us that the Trade Certificates which have been obtained by the petitioners have always been treated by the Department as equivalent to Diploma in Electircal Engineering and, therefore, the petitioners/respondents possessed the requisite academic qualifications. 6. Mr. C. Baruah, the learned counsel for the appellants has, however, contended that the question as to whether the Trade Certificates which are possessed by the petitioners are equivalent to Diploma in Electrical Engineering has to be determined by the competent authority on the basis of the practice which is being followed by the Department in accordance with any instruction issued in this connection and the learned Single Judge while recording the finding that the Trade Certificate will be treated to be equivalent to Diploma has not correctly interpreted the provisions of Rule 4B of the Rules. 7. After carefully considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the petitioners' Trade Certificates cannot be treated to be equivalent to Diplomas as contemplated under Rule 4B of the Rules and as the learned Single Judge has himself held that the petitioners/respondents did not possess Diploma and only possessed Trade Certificate, the question, therefore, whether the Trade Certificates can be treated to be Diploma as contemplated under Rule 4B of the Rules has to be determined by the competent authority. 8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the cases of the petitioners/ respondents will be considered by the competent authority and the competent authority will consider the recommendations made by the Chief Electrical Adviser, Assam contained in Annexure G to the Civil Rule and will also consider the question as to whether the petitioner/respondents possessed the requisite educational qualifications in the light of the observations made by us in this judgment for the purpose of making appointment (not promotion) under Rule 4B of the Rules within a period of two months from today. Mr. Mr. P. Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents has stated that four posts have not been filled up so that all the petitioners/respondents can be considered. If that be so, the four posts which have been kept open will be filled-up only after the competent authority takes a decision within the time given by us in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with Court. 9. Subject to the aforesaid observations the present appeal is finally disposal of.