JUDGMENT N.Pandey, J. The above-mentioned three appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. no. 2489 of 1993, whereby, he has quashed the order of the Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, dated 22.12.1992 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) and the notification dated 6.4.1993 (Annexure-16 of the writ petition) whereunder, different Junior Engineers were promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineers. 2. The writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7826 of 1995 has been filed for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioners, promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineers with effect from 1.5.1991 and to give all consequential benefits, as was made available to the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4286 of 1993, disposed of on 12.11.1993. 3. One intervention petition at Flag-B to L.P.A. No. 101 of 1994 has also been filed by one Arun Kumar. His claim is that seniority of such Junior Engineers, who had completed five years of service be determined for the purposes of promotion in special quota from the date of their obtaining degree in Engineering or equivalent Diploma Examinations. According to his case, since he passed A.M.I. Examination within five years of service, he should be declared senior to those, who passed such examinations after completing five years of service. It was contended although this writ application was directed to be heard and disposed of with C.W.J.C. No. 2489 of 1993 but unfortunately at that time it was not• placed for hearing. Therefore, in the changed circumstances the intervention petition was filed. 4. Before dealing with crucial contentions of the parties it would be relevant to notice that initially the appellants, intervenors as well as contesting respondents were appointed in the Bihar Sub-ordinate Engineering Service Cadre as Junior Engineers. Prior to 1973, following were the sources for promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineers in Bihar Engineering Service Class II : (a) From Junior Engineer Diploma Holders to 30% of cadre strength of Assistant Engineers (b) From Engineer Assistant Cadre (Engineering Graduate or equivalent Degree Holder) to 20% of total cadre strength of Assistant Engineer. Rest posts of Assistant Engineers were being filled up on direct recruitment of Engineering Graduate or equivalent Degree Holders from outside. Rest posts of Assistant Engineers were being filled up on direct recruitment of Engineering Graduate or equivalent Degree Holders from outside. Thus, Junior Engineers who were Engineer Graduates or passed equivalent examinations were being appointed in the cadre of Engineer Assistant and later promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineers in Bihar Engineering Service Class II on the basis of abovementioned quota. It is thus, obvious that opportunity for promotion of Junior Engineers to the rank of Assistant Engineer was available through the rank of Engineer Assistant. 5. But on 17.8.1973 the State Government decided to abolish the cadre of Engineers in different phases. Therefore, the door of Junior Engineer Assistants for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers through the rank of Engineer Assistants was closed. The only way was left for those Junior Engineers, who had become Engineer Graduates or obtained equivalent degree during service to compete with outsiders. 6. Therefore, to avoid their hardship the State Govt. vide a resolution dated 17.1.1979 took decision that 3% quota of the increased cadre strength of Assistant Engineers in Bihar Engineering Service Class II be fixed for promotion of such Junior Engineers, who became Engineering Graduates or passed equivalent examinations during service and had completed at least minimum period of five years in service. It was further resolved in case available number of such Junior Engineers was comperatively less than the number of vacancies, calculated on the basis of quota, than by granting appropriate relaxation, such vacancies would be filled up by direct recruitment. 7. It was also resolved that in case number of such Junior Engineers, who become Graduate Engineers or passed equivalent examinations are more than the number of vacancies then promotions should be given keeping in view that no harm is caused to other quota holders. But in such a situation prior approval of the Government was necessary. It was further incorporated that opportunity of promotion would be equally available to those permanent or temporary Junior Engineers, who become Graduate Engineers in service and also completed minimum five years. Condition No. (Cha) of the resolution shows that on the basis of the quota as indicated in paragraph (ka) of the resolution promotion will be given as per their seniority. But inter se seniority of such Junior Engineers was to be determined after getting necessary guidelines from the Personnal and Administrative Reforms Department. 8. Condition No. (Cha) of the resolution shows that on the basis of the quota as indicated in paragraph (ka) of the resolution promotion will be given as per their seniority. But inter se seniority of such Junior Engineers was to be determined after getting necessary guidelines from the Personnal and Administrative Reforms Department. 8. From the facts, noticed above, it is thus, apparent that there was no problem when the number of vacancies were higher than the number of candidates. Problam arose when the number of vacancy was found less than the qualified Junior Engineers. 9. The case of the State is that having regard to the conditions, as incorporated in the resolution dated 17.1.1979, the matter was referred to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department for necessary guidelines regarding determination of the inter se seniority of such Junior Engineers. But in return the Personal and Administrative Reforms Department by a letter dated 23.6.1992 asked Administrative Department itself to take necessary decision in such matters. Therefore, the Water Resources Department ultimately by order dated 22.12.1992 laid down specific criteria to determine inter se seniority of such Junior Engineers. The said order has been usefully quoted in paragraph no. 11 of the judgment under appeal. 10. A plain reading of condition no. (ka) of the said order would show that those Junior Engineers, who had completed five years of service and acquired requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers within the said period, would be eligible for promotion against the vacancies of special quota. Inter se seniority of such Junior Engineers is to be examined as per their service seniority. Criteria no. (kha) is with respect to those who have of course completed five years of service but acquired higher qualifications beyond the period of five years. The inter se seniority of such Junior Engineers shall be reckoned with effect from their passing of the qualifying examination. Because in such matters rule of normal service seniority to all the category of persons will defeat the purpose of fixing special quota by way of incentive. 11. From a combined reading of both the conditions it is, thus, obvious that date of seniority of such Junior Engineers for special promotion against 3% quota was to be considered from the date of their acquisition of higher qualifications. 11. From a combined reading of both the conditions it is, thus, obvious that date of seniority of such Junior Engineers for special promotion against 3% quota was to be considered from the date of their acquisition of higher qualifications. The qualifying period of five years continuous service as Junior Engineer was of course necessary for both the categories. 12. The Hon'ble Single Judge has however, held that aforementioned criteria of the department is in conflict with the resolution of the State Government dated 17.1.1979. It was observed that as per the said resolution, inter se seniority of such Junior Engineers was to be reckoned on the basis of their length of service in the cadre. In other words, those Junior Engineers, who had completed five years of service or more were eligible for promotion against the special quota as per service seniority irrespective of the date of passing the qualifying examinations. It has further been held since the resolution dated 17.1.1979 was issued by the State Government, in the name of Government, therefore, any other order or notification in conflict to such resolution by the Department of Water Resources has to be held illegal and ultra vires. Accordingly, having taken such a view, Hon'ble Judge directed the respondent-authorities to prepare a fresh List of all such Junior Engineers, who have acquired degree in Engineering or equivalent in accordance with their service seniority. 13. Learned Advocates appearing for the appellants contended that undisputedly the benefit of such a promotion was provided by way of incentives to those Junior Engineers, who acquired degree in Engineering or equivalent~ examination after entering the service. Therefore, in such cases the general criteria to grant service seniority would in fact defeat therein object behind such a scheme. If the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Single Judge is accepted then a Junior Engineer, although acquired degree in Engineering or Diploma, within five years of service, will not be able to get promotion, unless those Junior Engineers, acquiring such qualifications even after completion of 30 to 40 years of service are promoted because of their service seniority. In fact a harmonious reading of the resolution dated 17.1.1979 and the order dated 22.12.1992 would show that inter se seniority of such Junior Engineers" for promotion was to be determined from the date of their acquiring degree or diploma, as the case may be. 14. In fact a harmonious reading of the resolution dated 17.1.1979 and the order dated 22.12.1992 would show that inter se seniority of such Junior Engineers" for promotion was to be determined from the date of their acquiring degree or diploma, as the case may be. 14. It was next contended that even a Division Bench of this Court while considering the effect and scope of such resolution in the case of Ramjatan Sharma and ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 4286 of 1992 disposed of on 12.11.1993), has already held that seniority in such a matter should be treated from the date of passing the qualifying examinations• and service seniority cannot be a deciding factor. Reliance was also placed to a decision of the Apex Court in the case N. Suresh Nathan and another vs. Union of India and ors. ( AIR 1992 SC 564 ) wherein a similar question arose for consideration whether a diploma holder junior engineer who obtained degree while in service becomes eligible for appointment as Assistant Engineer by promotion on completion of three years service including therein the period of service rendered prior to obtaining the degree or three years service as degree holder for this purpose is to be reckoned from the date of obtaining the degree. The Supreme Court considering the relevant provisions of that case, held that the period of three years service in the cadre for eligibility for promotion as degree holder commenced from the date of obtaining degree the earlier period of service as diploma holders was not to be counted for this purpose. To make it more clear, it would be advisable to quote the relevant findings of the aforesaid judgment in this regard : The entire scheme, therefore, does indicate that the period of three years' service in the grade required for Degree-holders according to R-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 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." (Paragraph 5). 15. Mr. The service in the grade as 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." (Paragraph 5). 15. Mr. Prasad, appearing for the respondents (writ petitioners) on the other hand contended that having regard to the judgment of the apex court in the case of M. B. Joshi and others vs. State of M.P. & ors. ( AIR 1993 SC 267 ) and Satpal Antil v. Union of India and another ( AIR 1995 SC 1858 ), there cannot be any rational to differentiate junior engineers who become eligible for promotion within five years of service and those who qualified after five years. That apart, the decision of the concerned department vide order dated 22.12.1992 is not a Government order. Therefore, any attempt to modify the Government resolution dated 25.1.1979 would frustrate the main object behind such incentives. Such an order besides being contrary to the Government's resolution is also arbitrary- and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 16. He contended that even from the impunged resolution one can safely draw an inference that while granting promotion the cadre seniority of the junior engineers were to be reckoned for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. 17. He next contended that even from the judgment in the case of M.B. Joshi and ors (supra), it would appear that criteria for promotion in absence of any rule that length of service should be determining factor and not from the date of acquiring qualification during service. It would be advisable to refer to some of the relevant paras of the aforesaid report herein: - "It was clearly laid down in the above case that if the past practice is based on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the rules then upsetting the same now would not be appropriate. It was clearly said "it is in this perspective that the question raised has to be determined". It was also observe as already quoted above that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the contrary view and upsetting the settled practice in the department. That apart the scheme of the rules in N.Suresh Nathan's case ( AIR 1992 SC 564 ) was entirely different from the scheme of the Rules before us. It was also observe as already quoted above that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the contrary view and upsetting the settled practice in the department. That apart the scheme of the rules in N.Suresh Nathan's case ( AIR 1992 SC 564 ) was entirely different from the scheme of the Rules before us. The rule in that case prescribed for appointment by promotion of Section officers/junior Engineers provided that 50 percent quota shall be from 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. The aforesaid rule itself provided in explicit terms that Section Officers possessing a recognised Degree in Civil Engineering was made equivalent with three years' service in the grade. Thus, in the scheme of such rules the period of three years' service was rightly counted from the date of obtaining such degree. In the cases in hand before us, the scheme of the rules is entirely different." (paragraph 10). "If such interpretation as now sought to be advanced by Mr. Ashok Sen, learned senior counsel is accepted no relief could have been granted to the respondent Satish Kumar Panday. We would illustrate the above position on admitted facts. Shri Satish Kumar Panday had joined as Sub Engineer on 23.8.1988, but had acquired the degree of engineering in May, 1987. In that situation, Mr. Satish Kumar becomes eligible only in May, 1990 and he could not be considered eligible in December 1989 when these Sub-Engineers were considered for promotion as Assistant Engineers. Even otherwise, if this period of 8 years is counted from the date of acquiring degree then this incentive of adding the qualification during the continuation of service and getting the advantage of acceleration in promotion in 8 years would for all practical purpose become nugatory and of no benefit." (paragraph 12) "It is further important to note that in the case before us, the Government itself has been adopting the practice and making promotion as contended by the appellants and we are upholding such practice. In N. Suresh Nathan's case ( AIR 1992 SC 564 ) also this court had upheld the practice followed by the Government. In N. Suresh Nathan's case ( AIR 1992 SC 564 ) also this court had upheld the practice followed by the Government. It is also well settled principle of service jurispudence that 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 on any other fortuitous circumstances." (Paragraph 13). 18. In my view, there cannot be any dispute that in absence of any specific rule, seniority amongst the persons holding similar post of the same cadre has to be reckoned on the basis of length of service. Admittedly, no statutory rule has been prescribed laying down criteria to grant promotion to the junior engineers against the aforementioned 3% special quota. It is also admitted that for the first time, by the resolution dated 11.1.1979, the benefit of such promotion was provided by way of incentives to those junior engineers who acquired higher qualifications during service. It has been noticed that in case number of such eligible and qualified junior engineers was less then the number of vacancies, all of them were to be accommodated against such vacancies without any dispute. But in case number of vacancies was less than the number of junior engineers, no specific criteria was prescribed under the Government's resolution. Therefore, to meet such a situation, it was left open to the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department to issue necessary guidelines. But it has been noticed that the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, vide letter dated 23.6.1992 in fact, asked the Water Resources Department itself to issue necessary guidelines, regarding fixation of inter se seniority of such junior engineers. Accordingly, having regard to the request of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, the Department of Water Resources vide order dated 22.12.1992 issued necessary guidelines which have been usefully quoted in paragraph 11 of the judgment under appeal. 19. In fact a bare reference to the entire Scheme and the procedures for its implementation, there appears no conflict between the Government's resolution and that of the order of the Department of Water Resources dated 22.12.1992. Rather the later decision appears to have been taken to give the full effect of the Government's policy. 19. In fact a bare reference to the entire Scheme and the procedures for its implementation, there appears no conflict between the Government's resolution and that of the order of the Department of Water Resources dated 22.12.1992. Rather the later decision appears to have been taken to give the full effect of the Government's policy. It is well settled that a document has to be read harmoniously as a whole giving effect to all the clauses, contained in the document which manifest the intention of the executant. Reference can be made to a decision of the Apex court in the case of Narmadaben Maganlal Thakker vs. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker and ors., (1997) 2 SCC 255 . 20. True it is that the resolution dated 17.1.1979 was issued under the orders of the Government "BIHAR RAJYAPAL KE ASDESH SE". Therefore, any order or notification in conflict to the provisions of that notification can only be issued by the order of the same authority. Reference in this regard can usefully be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar Gupta and ors. VS. The State of Bihar & ors., 1990 (2) PLJR 549 . But it is well known that an executive authority in order to implement Government's decision can always prescribe certain modes from time to time, if necessary. In the instant case, as per the Government's resolution, itself, there was a command to the executive authorities of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department to prescribe .an appropriate norms to determine inter' se seniority of such junior engineers who are eligible for promotion on the basis of special quota. 21. It has already been noticed that to comply with the said requirement, the matter was referred to the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department. But the said department ultimately asked the Water Resources Department itself to take appropriate decision. Therefore, in these backgrounds, it would not be proper to submit that the order of the department dated 22.12.1992 was in conflict with the Government's resolution dated 17.1.1979. 22. As I have indicated that only question before us was the construction of the provisions prescribed under the Government's resolution and subsequent orders of the Water Resources Departments, therefore, with respect to redressal on any other grievance, parties can approach the concerned department which can be adjudicated and disposed of in terms of this judgment. 23. 22. As I have indicated that only question before us was the construction of the provisions prescribed under the Government's resolution and subsequent orders of the Water Resources Departments, therefore, with respect to redressal on any other grievance, parties can approach the concerned department which can be adjudicated and disposed of in terms of this judgment. 23. Undisputedly, the purpose of giving incentives of adding educational qualification was introduced with a view to grant promotion against special quota to those who acquired higher qualification during service. In the case of N. Suresh Nathan and another (supra), the Apex Court has already held that eligibility for promotion in such cases would commence from the date of obtaining degree or diploma, as the case may be. The earlier period of service of such junior engineers was not to be counted for this purpose. 24. I am, therefore, not able to persuade myself to hold that the promotion against such a special quota was to be granted on the basis of service seniority. 25. Consequently, therefore, all the appeals as well as writ petition and intervention petition are hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. The impugned judgment is set aside. The department will now consider the question of promotion against special quota of 3% in accordance with its decision. But there shall be no order as to costs. P.K. Sarkar, J. – agree.