Judgment : D. K. Seth, J. 1. RULE 5E read with RULE 18 of Uttar Pradesh District Offices (Collectorates) Ministerial Service Rules, 1980, has been sought to be declared ultra vires to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, by means of this writ petition. The grounds for challenge Is that Stenographer Grade II and Grade I In Category F particularly to Stenographer Grade I are compelled to stagnate while their counterparts in Category D, were allowed promotional channel in Category-E, excluding the Stenographers. 2. DR. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the persons holding post in Category C in the scale of Rs. 250-425 being the same pay scale of Stenographer Grade II are allowed promotion to Category D in the scale of Rs. 280-460 while Stenographer Grade II allowed promotion to the Stenographer Grade I in the pay scale of Rs. 300-500 while those in Category-D have scope of further promotion available to Category-E In the scale of Rs. 450-700. Whereas no further promotional channel is open and available to Stenographer Grade I. He also points out that a person in Category A has promotional channel open in Category B, then Category C followed by Category D and E. In those cases, as many as there are four promotional channel higher up. Whereas Stenographer Grade I which may be filled up even by direct recruitment does not have any further scope for promotion, whereas Stenographer Grade II has only one channel to Stenographer Grade I. According to him even from Category C there are two promotional channels open, whereas Stenographer Grade II has only one promotional channel open to them. On these grounds he contends that Rule 5 Category E providing promotional scope only to Category D filled up by promotion from Category C excluding Category F is ultra vires. In as much as the persons holding the post of Category F have been allowed stagnate without further promotion which is wholly discriminatory. Similar question arose in the case of U. P. Government Stenographers Association and others v. State of U. P. and others. Writ Petition No. 5176 of 1987. In as much as the persons holding the post of Category F have been allowed stagnate without further promotion which is wholly discriminatory. Similar question arose in the case of U. P. Government Stenographers Association and others v. State of U. P. and others. Writ Petition No. 5176 of 1987. disposed of on 20.7.1990 by a Division Bench of this Court, in which Rule 5 (1) of U. P; Food and Civil Supplies (Supply Branch) Subordinate Service Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Civil Supply Rules) so far as it excluded Stenographers from the field of eligibility to the post of Inspector, was declared ultra vires. Rule 5 (1) of U. P. Food and Civil Supplies (Supply Branch) Subordinate Service Rules, 1980, as It stood when the same was challenged in the said writ petition, was as follows : "5. Sources of recruitment.-(1) Recruitment to the various categories of posts in the Service shall be made from the following sources- (i) Inspector.-(a) By direct recruitment through the Commission ; and (b) By promotion through the Commission from amongst permanent Head Clerks/Permanent Accountants working in the Supply Branch of the Food and Civil Supplies Department. (ii) Senior Inspector.-(a) By direct recruitment through the Commission ; (b) By promotion through the Commission from amongst permanent Inspectors. (2) Recruitment to the cadres of Inspectors and Senior Inspectors shall be so arranged that as far as may be 50 per cent of the posts are held by direct recruitment and 50 per cent by persons appointed by promotion." 3. WHEREAS Rule 5 of U. P. District Offices (Collectorate) Ministerial Service Rules (hereinafter referred to Collectorate Rules) so far as it is relevant for our purpose, being Category C, D, E and F, provides as under: Category 'C Enquiry clerk in the scale of By promotion from amongst the pay of Rs. 250-425. permanent incumbents of the posts mentioned in Category B. Category "D" Senior Assistant which term By promotion from amongst the includes Nazir, Judicial Assistant. permanent incumbents of the posts Revenue Assistant, Revenue Record mentioned in Category B and C Keeper, English Record Keeper, above. Chief Revenue Accountant and any other ministerial post in the scale of pay of Rs. 280-460. permanent incumbents of the posts mentioned in Category B. Category "D" Senior Assistant which term By promotion from amongst the includes Nazir, Judicial Assistant. permanent incumbents of the posts Revenue Assistant, Revenue Record mentioned in Category B and C Keeper, English Record Keeper, above. Chief Revenue Accountant and any other ministerial post in the scale of pay of Rs. 280-460. Note.-(1) For the purpose of promotion to the posts in Category D a combined seniority list shall be prepared by arranging the name of Enquiry clerk and thereafter the names of persons holding the posts in Category B in order of seniority. (2) Where a person is selected both for the posts in Category C and 'D' the post in Category 'D' shall be first offered to the person in order of seniority. Category E Office Superintendent (in the pay By promotion from amongst the scale of Rs. 450-700. permanent incumbents of the posts in Category D. Category F (1) Stenographer Grade II in the By direct recruitment, scale of Rs. 250-425. (ii) Stenographer, Grade I (in the By promotion from amongst the scale of Rs. 300-500. permanent Stenographers in the scale of Rs. 250-425. If suitable persons are not available for promotion the post may be filled up by direct recruitment." 4. A comparison of the said two Rules show that the said Civil Supplies Rule in Rule 5 provides for promotion to the Post of Inspector by direct recruitment and through promotion from amongst permanent Head Clerks, permanent Accountant, whereas promotion to the post of Senior Inspector was provided by direct recruitment and by promotion from amongst permanent Inspectors and the ratio was fixed at fifty per cent of each categories. For the purposes of promotion to the post of Inspectors and Senior Inspectors, Stenographers of the said department were thoroughly excluded. Similarly in the Collectorate Rules, Category E posts are to be filled up by promotion from amongst permanent incumbents of the posts in Category D excluding the Stenographers in Category F. Thus there appears to be an identity of commonness In the feature of both the Rules in the matter of exclusion of Stenographer for being promoted in the respective higher posts. After the judgment in the case of U. P. Government Stenographers Association (supra) declaring Rule 5 (1) as ultra vires was delivered, the Civil Supply Rules were amended by including the Stenographers as source of recruitment by promotion to the post of Inspectors in the following manner : "5. Sources of recruitment. -Recruitment to the various categories of posts in the Service shall be made from the following sources- (1) Inspector.-(a) Seventy five per cent by direct recruitment through the Commission; and (b) Twenty five per cent by promotion through Selection Committee from amongst substantively appointed such incumbents of the posts of the categories mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) below as have completed five years of service on any one or more of the posts of the said categories on the first day of the year of recruitment - (I) Senior Assistant-Accountants, Senior Clerks, Accounts Clerk, and Junior Clerk/Typist to the extent of twenty per cent of the post; and (it) Stenographer-To the extent of five per cent of the posts. (iii) Senior Inspector-By promotion through Selection Committee from amongst substantively appointed Inspector who have completed at least five years service as such or the first day of the year of recruitment." 5. THUS, we find that Stenographers similarly situated in the Civil Supplies Department were granted the benefit of promotional channel to a higher post while their counterparts in the Collectorate were deprived of similar opportunity. 6. IN the said case, a question was raised that the Stenographers altogether perform the duties different from the Assistant Accountants and, therefore, they might be excluded from the field of eligibility for promotion to the higher post. The said question was dealt with in the said judgment with the following observation : "The duties of a Stenographer are indeed very much different from the duties of clerks and accountants, that could be a basis for excluding Stenographers from the field of eligibility for promotion to higher posts. However, the petitioners pointed out that in several departments of the U. P. Government Stenographers fall in the field of eligibility for higher posts which require performance of duties of entirely different nature. It is accordingly submitted on behalf of the petitioners that exclusion of Stenographers from the field of eligibility for promotion to higher posts in the Food and Civil Supplies Department is arbitrary and without any Justification. It is accordingly submitted on behalf of the petitioners that exclusion of Stenographers from the field of eligibility for promotion to higher posts in the Food and Civil Supplies Department is arbitrary and without any Justification. Reference in this connection has been made to the rules obtaining in Sales Tax, Forest, Sugar, Entertainment Tax, Agriculture and Transport Departments. It is stated that in the Sales Tax Department 6 per cent posts are reserved for Stenographers for promotion to the cadre of Sales Tax Officer Grade II. IN the Forest Department under the U. P. Forest Department Clerical Cadre Service Rules, 1981, Stenographers are eligible to be promoted as Chief Head Assistant and Head Clerk. Under the U. P. Sugar Department Subordinate Service Rules, 1981 Stenographers fall in the field of eligibility for promotion to the post of Khandsari Inspector. IN the Entertainment Tax Department Stenographers are eligible for promotion to the post of Entertainment Inspector. Under the U. P. Transport Department (Taxation Subordinate Service Rules, 1979 Stenographers fall in the field of eligibility for promotion to the post of Traffic Inspector and Goods Inspector. The petitioner has placed on record copy of Government order dated 23rd October, 1972 whereby J. C. Tewari, Head Clerk and Hari Shanker Agarwal, Stenographer in Agriculture Directorate were promoted to the post of Administrative Officer. From this it would appear that IN the Agriculture Department Stenographers were not excluded from the field of eligibility for promotion to administrative posts. IN Annexure 12 the petitioner has mentioned names of 18 Stenographers who were appointed to administrative and Inspectorate posts IN the Food and Civil Supplies Department prior to the enforcement of the statutory rules mentioned hereinabove. The Stenographer mentioned IN this list were promoted to the posts of District Supply Officer Senior Supply Inspector, Area Rationing Officer and Supply Inspector. The State Government has not controverted these allegations. If Stenographers working in other departments of the U. P. Government were found fit for promotion to inspectorate and administrative IN the Food and Civil Supplies Department. It will, therefore, have to be held that the action of the State Government is arbitrary and deserving of quashing. The exclusion arises from the field of eligibility prescribed in Rule 5 (1) of the U. P. Food and Civil Supplies (Supply Wing) Subordinate Service Rules, 1980. It will, therefore, have to be held that the action of the State Government is arbitrary and deserving of quashing. The exclusion arises from the field of eligibility prescribed in Rule 5 (1) of the U. P. Food and Civil Supplies (Supply Wing) Subordinate Service Rules, 1980. This rule so far as It excludes Stenographers of the department from the field of eligibility will accordingly have to be held as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." The same analogy is equally applicable in the case of Stenographer In the Collectorate as well. It would not be possible to reject the plea of Stenographer on the ground as contended by the learned standing counsel and vehementally argued that the Stenographers having been performing altogether different kind of duties are wholly unsuitable for being promoted to the post of Office Superintendent, being Category E because of the nature of the job undertaken by the Office Superintendent, cannot be sustained. 7. NOW, admittedly the Stenographers in Grade II have promotional channel to the post of Stenographer Grade I. Though Stenographers Grade II are in the same scale of Category C but Stenographers Grade II are eligible only for one promotion, whereas Category C are privileged to two higher promotions, one in the scale of Rs. 280-460 and the next In the scale of Rs. 450-750. The Stenographer Grade I having granted the pay scale of Rs. 300-500 which is little higher than Category D admittedly is far less than Rs. 450-700 In Category E. The Stenographer Grade I is filled in normally by promotion but in case suitable persons are not available for promotion, the post may be filled up by direct recruitment. In case a person is appointed to Stenographer Grade I by direct recruitment, in that event he does not have any further promotional channel and would be stagnating in the scale, post throughout his service career, which is altogether an unhealthy administrative set up, not to speak of discrimination with those of his counterpart in Category D. At the same time, Category D in the pay scale of 280-460 which is little less than Stenographer Grade I in the scale of Rs. 300-560 are eligible for promotion to the scale of Rs. 450-700. On the other hand. 300-560 are eligible for promotion to the scale of Rs. 450-700. On the other hand. Stenographer Grade I having little higher grade than Category D will be deprived of any promotion to any further higher posts. 8. IN the case of Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary Home (Police Department), Government of Bihar and others, AIR 1988 SC 1033 : 1988 (Supp.) SCC 519, the Apex Court had laid down: "....................Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available IN every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. IN the absence of promotional prospects the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly." In the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, AIR 1989 SC 1972 , the Apex Court had observed : "It is often said and indeed, adroitly an organisation public or private does not hire a hand but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. "The organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, mis allocation of personnel low morale and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors. There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning man power development management development etc. which is not related to a higher promotions (See Management of Indian Enterprises by Prof. N. N. Chatterjee Chap. 12 P. 128).............." 9. IN the case of Or. Ms. O. Z. Hussain. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 311 , it was observed by the Apex Court that: "This court has on more than one occasion pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. Ms. O. Z. Hussain. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 311 , it was observed by the Apex Court that: "This court has on more than one occasion pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no Justification why while similarly placed officers in other Ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical 'A' Group Scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. IN a welfare State it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the 'A' category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directoraste."