JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioner-Pramod Kumar Sharma, who is functioning on the post of Wireman in the Nagar Palika Bundi, has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.1-Nagar Palika, Bundi for granting him promotion on the post of Assistant Light Inspector in place of respondent No.2-Raj. Kumar who has already been promoted on this post since long on 12.2.1982. 2. The facts of the case in so far as it is relevant for deciding the controversy involved herein are to the following effect the petitioner was appointed on daily wages on 20.9.83 in the Office of Nagar Palika Bundi on the post of Wireman, but his services were not regularised thereafter for a long time. He was however finally regularised on this post on 7.11.1988. In the meantime the non-petitioner respondent No.2-Raj Kumar, who was functioning as a Wireman, had already completed 7 years of service on this post and hence it was thought proper to grant him promotion on the post of Assistant Light Inspector by virture- of Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial Services) Rules, 1963 (for short "the Rules of 1963") which envisages that for purposes of recruitment by promotion, a selection strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-merit shall be made amongst members of the service eligible for promotion as provided in the Schedule. It further lays down that in selecting the candidates for promotion regard shall be had to their:-(i) technical qualification, knowledge and experience; (ii) tact, energy and intelligence; (iii) integrity; and (iv) previous record of service. 3. The Schedule to this rule further lays down the essential qualification for the post of Assistant Light Inspector that the persons should be matriculate or its equivalent qualification with Diploma in Electricity from Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I. for short) or Polytechnic or other equivalent qualification from a recognised institution with 5 years experience. 4. The respondent, who was already possessing 7 years of experience in the year 1982 and whose record of service was found satisfactory in all aspects was granted ad hoc promotion of the post of Assistant Light Inspector. 4. The respondent, who was already possessing 7 years of experience in the year 1982 and whose record of service was found satisfactory in all aspects was granted ad hoc promotion of the post of Assistant Light Inspector. The petitioner at this stage who was working as Wireman on daily wages and was possessing ITI Certificate felt aggrieved of the promotion granted to respondent o.2-Raj Kumar as he thought that he being better qualified, should have been promoted to the post of Assistant Light Inspector and the promotion of respondent No.2 Raj. Kumar was an unjust discrimination against the petitioner. The petitioner however missed that he had been appointed on daily wages subsequently on 20.9.83 whose services had not even been regularised and as per the Schedule to the Rule if 5 years experience alongwith ITI certificate was essential for the post of Assistant Light Inspector, his expectation to get the promotion was clearly contrary to the rules which was totally ignored or missed by him. Yet he thought it proper to file the writ petition challenging the promotion of respondent No.2 which was admitted and is now been finally heard. 5. The counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Pareek reiterated the stand of the petitioner and submitted that the promotion granted to the respondent No.2 from the post of Wireman to the post of Assistant Light Inspector was clearly contrary to the rules laid down in the Rules of 1963 as the schedule to the same itself lays down that the respondent No.2 although was possessing 7 years of experience at the time of his promotion, he was lacking the essential qualification viz. the matriculation certificate or the TTI certificate. But he has ignored the fact that he himself although was possessing the minimum educational qualification as he was possessing ITI certificate, he was not even in service in the year 1982 and in the year 1983 also he was not regular in service as a Wireman. He was thus not possessing 5 years of requisite experience on the post so as to claim the promotion. It is thus apparent that the challenge to the promotion of respondent No.2 at the instance of the petitioner was dearly beyond the ambit and scope of the rule and it has absolutely no legal force to sustain it. He was thus not possessing 5 years of requisite experience on the post so as to claim the promotion. It is thus apparent that the challenge to the promotion of respondent No.2 at the instance of the petitioner was dearly beyond the ambit and scope of the rule and it has absolutely no legal force to sustain it. Apart from this fact, the Schedule to the Rules of 1963 also clearly indicates the essential qualifications meant for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Light Inspector and Rule 24 of the Rules of 1963 is the rule which clearly envisages appointment by promotion for which different criteria is laid down and although technical qualification is one of the considerations for promotion to the post, it is not the sole criterion as there are other essential qualifications like knowledge and experience, tact, energy and intelligence, integrity etc. laid down hereinbefore which are the essential qualifications for promotion Besides this, counsel for respondent No. 2 Mr. Sanjay Mehrish has relied upon the authority of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC, 371 delivered in the case of Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation in order to emphasise that practical experience even as per the Apex Court Judgment has to be given extreme weightage for appointment to a post specially in case of promotion as the learned Judges have observed in this case that practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and a sure guide to assess the suitability. Hence, the initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for a particular post although is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments of daily rated workers are made and they are allowed for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the weightage for the respective pots on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualification. In this case, therefore, three years experience ignoring artificial break in service for short periods created by the management was ordered to be ignored for the purposes of confirmation of the workmen who had been engaged on daily wages. In this case, therefore, three years experience ignoring artificial break in service for short periods created by the management was ordered to be ignored for the purposes of confirmation of the workmen who had been engaged on daily wages. Learned counsel has submitted that the principle enunciated and the ratio of this Judgment is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case for if the respondent No.2 at the time of his promotion was qualified in all respects to be appointed as Assistant Light Inspector and Rule 24 which has prescribed qualifications for promotion also lays down other criteria for promotion which includes experience, tact, energy and intelligence, integrity and previous record of service, then lack of merely one of the criterion cannot be a reason to set aside the promotion at the instance of some one like the petitioner who himself was clearly ineligble for the promotional post. 6. I, thus do not find any force in the plea of the petitioner who was himself not qualified since he was appointed on daily wages in the year 1983 after the respondent No.2 was promoted in the year 1982 & experience being one of the main criterion for promotion for the direct-recruits as also for promotees, then merely because the petitioner was possessing ITI certificate who had just entered into the service as a daily rated employee when respondent No.2 was promoted, could not have granted the petitioner a legal right to challenge the promotion when he was himself not eligible for promotion. No relief, therefore, can be granted to the petitioner and hence, this writ petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******