Sri Umesh Mohan, Advocate for A. K. Gupta, petitioner, Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 (State of U. P. through the Principal Secretary, Avas Evam Nagar Vikas/the Director, Local Bodies, U. P. and Sri C. K. Parekh, Advocate for the respondent No. 3/mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Varanasi Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Facts of the case not in dispute, are as follows. 2. The State Government vide its order dated 11-1-1989 addressed to the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow/agra/allahabad/varanasi informed that World Bank had advanced financial aid for U. P. Town Development and under this project conceived formation of traffic Engineering and Management Cells to be implemented in all the major towns in the towns referred to in the said Government Order. The aforesaid Government Order contained details of the posts of traffic and Transportation Planners in Pay Scale of 1100-2050 outside Centralized Services; that of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Civil) (posts of Centralized Services) besides the post of tracer. Mahapalika were required to fill up these posts immediately. (copy of the G. O. is Annexure 1 to the writ petition ). 3. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Agra, after giving through requisite formalities, issued letter of appointment dated October 24, 1989, on the post of Traffic and Transportation Planner in favour of the petitioner, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Subsequently, Government, vide its letter dated 11-4-1992 addressed to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of the concerned Mahapalika, intimated that it had taken decision to recognize all the four posts of traffic Engineer Services mentioned in the Government Order dated 11-1-1989 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) under U. P. Palika Centralized Services Rules 1966 and the post of traffic and Transportation Planner was redesignated as executive Engineer/adhishashi Abhiyanta (Traffic). The U. P. Government, we are informed, issued U. P. Palika (Centralized) Service (13th Amendment) Rules 1992 vide Notification dated 31-3-1992. For convenience, relevant extract of aforesaid Rules is reproduced: "rule 12. U. P. Palika Engineering (Superior) Service.-, (i) Chief Engineers of Nagar Mahapalika. (ii) Executive Engineers of Nagar Mahapalikas (Civil,, Electrical,, Mechanical and Automobile) (iii) Assistant Engineers of Nagar Mahapalikas (Civil,, Electrical,, Mechanical and Automobiles) (iv) Civil Engineer of Class I Municipal Boards. (v) Civil Engineers (Qualified),, of Class II Municipal Boards. 13. . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . (ii) Executive Engineers of Nagar Mahapalikas (Civil,, Electrical,, Mechanical and Automobile) (iii) Assistant Engineers of Nagar Mahapalikas (Civil,, Electrical,, Mechanical and Automobiles) (iv) Civil Engineer of Class I Municipal Boards. (v) Civil Engineers (Qualified),, of Class II Municipal Boards. 13. . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. U. P. Palika Water Works Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (Superior) Service. , (i) Nagar Abhiyanta (Jal Kal) of Mahapalikas (ii) Mechanical Engineer of Mahapalika,, Kanpur (iii) Sahayak Abhiyantas (Jal Kal) of Mahapalikas (iv) Water Works,, Engineers,, Electrical Engineers,, Electrical and Water Works Engineers of "a" and "b" Undertakings Municipal Boards (v) Assistant Water Works Engineers,, Assistant Electrical and Water Works Engineers (Qualified) of Class "a" undertakings on Municipal Boards. 15-A. U. P. Traffic Engineering Service.-, (I) Adhishasi Abhiyanta of Nagar Mahapalika (Traffic and Transportation Planning) @z_tbl_body = TABLE TEXT, a , (II) Sahayak Abhiyanta (Traffic and Transportation Planning) , (III) Avar Abhiyanta (Traffic and Transportation Planning) @z_tbl_end = 4. Serial Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Schedule, attached to of Rules 1966 as amended by U. P. Palika (Centralized) Service (13th Amend) Rules, 1992, shows that there are U. P. Palika Engineering (Superior Service), U. P. Palika Engineering (Subordinate Service), to U. P. Palika Jalkal, Electrical Mechanical (Superior And Subordinate Services. In addition, it also contains at Serial No. 15-A U. P. Palika Traffic Engineering Services, U. P. Palika Engineering (Superior Services) at Serial No. 12 - includes posts of Chief Engineers, Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Civil Engineers of Civil Electrical Mechanical and automobile branch. 5. The State Government, vide order dated 17-8-1992 addressed to Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra (Annexure-4 to the Writ petition), intimated that by means of 13th Amendment of Rule 1992, post of Traffic and Transportation Planner, outside Centralized Services held by the petitioner A. K. Gupta, is being absorbed in centralized Services with its new nomenclature adhishashi Abhiyanta (Traffic). 6. The State Government, vide order dated 17-8-1992 addressed to Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra (Annexure-4 to the Writ petition), intimated that by means of 13th Amendment of Rule 1992, post of Traffic and Transportation Planner, outside Centralized Services held by the petitioner A. K. Gupta, is being absorbed in centralized Services with its new nomenclature adhishashi Abhiyanta (Traffic). 6. Petitioner was, however, transferred as Adhishashi Abhiyanta (Traffic) from Nagar Nigam Allahabad to Lucknow, Mukhya Nagar Adhikari Lucknow Nagar Nigam, intimated the Government that the post in question was not vacant and hence Sri A. K. Gupta cannot be allowed to join at Lucknow, consequently the petitioner be adjusted elsewhere (Annexure-5 to the Writ petition ). In pursuance of this letter, Government issued another letter dated 27-6-1996 requiring Sri A. K. Gupta, Adhishashi Abhiyanta (Traffic) to join Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. 7. The petitioner filed representations dated 18-1-1999, 3-2-1999 and 16-3-2000 addressed to the Secretary, U. P. Government Nagar Vikas Anubhag-4 along with letter of Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Varanasi recommending for favourable consideration of the petitioners representations, vide letter dated 18-1-1999, 3-2-1999 and 16-3-2000 (compositively filed as Annexure-7 to the Writ petition ). 8. 7. The petitioner filed representations dated 18-1-1999, 3-2-1999 and 16-3-2000 addressed to the Secretary, U. P. Government Nagar Vikas Anubhag-4 along with letter of Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Varanasi recommending for favourable consideration of the petitioners representations, vide letter dated 18-1-1999, 3-2-1999 and 16-3-2000 (compositively filed as Annexure-7 to the Writ petition ). 8. Since no action was taken on the aforesaid representations, hence he was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950 wherein the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs: (i) "to issue a writ of mandamus or an order or direction in the nature thereof commanding the respondent No. 1 to declare Rule 3, item No. 15 (a) of U. P. Palika Centralized Service Rules, 1966 as arbitrary as it does not provide any promotional avenue to the Executive Engineer directly recruited in U. P. Palika Traffic Engineering Service and to add the post of Chief Engineer in the said cadre on the model of rules framed for U. P. Palika Engineering (Superior) Service and U. P. Palika Water Works, Electrical and Mechanical (Superior) Service (Item No. 12 and 14 of Rule 3 of U. P. Palika Centralized Service Rules, 1966) and promote the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer; (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or an order or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondents to provide at least two promotional avenues to the Executive Engineer directly recruited in U. P. Palika Traffic Engineering Service in view of the law laid down by the Honble High Court and the Honble Apex Court in the cases: (1) V. B. Singh and Others v. State of U. P. and Others (1994 (3) UPLBEC 1918 ). (2) Dr. O. Z. Hussain v. UOI and Others, 1990 (Suppl.) SCC (688 ). Alternatively - (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or an order or direction in the nature thereof commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for maintaining a common seniority list at the level of Executive Engineer consisting of U. P. Palika Traffic Engineering Service and U. P. Palika Engineering (Superior) Service under the U. P. Palika Centralized Service Rules, 1966 and promote the petitioner in Nagar Nigam as per his seniority in the common cadre. 1 and 2 for maintaining a common seniority list at the level of Executive Engineer consisting of U. P. Palika Traffic Engineering Service and U. P. Palika Engineering (Superior) Service under the U. P. Palika Centralized Service Rules, 1966 and promote the petitioner in Nagar Nigam as per his seniority in the common cadre. (iv) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v) To award cost of the Writ petition to the petitioner. " 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, who holds post of Adhishashi Abhiyanta, under Centralized Service 1966 (as amended up-to-date), has no promotional avenue and the same is against the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ms. O. Z. Hussain v. Union of India and Others, 1990 (supp.) SCC 688. Para 7 of the judgment quoted below: "this Court, has no 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 benifit of promotion, the 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 alternations 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 Directorate. " 10. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alternations 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 Directorate. " 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the case of V. B. Singh and Others v. State of U. P. and Others, [ (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1918] decided by learned Single Judge of this Court relying on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court as well as the case reported in (1998) 4 SCC 635, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another v. K. G. S. Bhatt and another, wherein the learned Single Judge observed that in view of the Supreme Court direction to frame appropriate rules providing suitable promotional avenues; Government should examine the tenability of the claim of equal pay scale within a limited period. The learned Single Judge also referred the case of Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others, reported in 1988 (Suppl.) SCC 519, wherein the Supreme Court observed that: "reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every thing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving in excellence in service. In the absence of promotional proposals, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. " 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/mukhya Nagar Adhikari, referred to para 5 of the counter- affidavit wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was transferred by the State Government vide order dated 6-7-2001 and posted as Deputy Director Technical in the office of Director Local Body, Lucknow, and, therefore, respondent No. 3 has no concern with the dispute raised in the present petition. 12. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 and 2 referred to para 10 and 13 of the counter-affidavit (sworn by Prem Prakash Srivastava, Senior Administrative Officer, Directorate of Local Bodies, U. P. , Lucknow), which are reproduced: "10. That the contents of para 20 of the Writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated. 12. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 and 2 referred to para 10 and 13 of the counter-affidavit (sworn by Prem Prakash Srivastava, Senior Administrative Officer, Directorate of Local Bodies, U. P. , Lucknow), which are reproduced: "10. That the contents of para 20 of the Writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated. In this connection it is stated that the Executive Engineer belonging to cadre under U. P. Palika Engineer Superior Services is degree/diploma in Civil Electrical and Mechanical and Automobile while for the U. P. Palika Traffic Engineering Services are also degree/diploma, as such, it cannot be said that the Traffic Engineer has higher qualification. 13. That the contents of paras 28 to 35 of the Writ petition are not admitted. The Government had full power to make the policy and as per the policy decision of the Government, there is no promotional post for the Executive Engineer (Traffic) and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any promotional. Post as per the Government Policy. The case law regarding these points are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case and there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,1950. " 13. The petitioner, in reply to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, states that one Gyan Prakash Misra Assistant Engineer (Civil) Nagar Nigam, Agra has been transferred to Nagar Nigam, Lucknow as Assistant Engineer (Traffic ). The petitioner further states that various posts in different Branches of Mahapalika and the Nagar Nigam in the State of U. P. , so far as they are relevant for the present case, are covered by centralized Service Rules and they form one Engineers Cadre; and hence the Engineer in different Branches can be transferred to other Branches, needless to mention that it is subject to one possessing requisite qualifications. 14. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand as well as arguments made at the Bar, we notice that some confusion has been created due to use of certain expressions in the description of the service, as will be seen on reading Rule 3 of the Centralized Service Rules, 1966. 15. Serial No. 12, in the above quoted Schedule, deals with "u. P. Palika Engineering (Superior) Service". 15. Serial No. 12, in the above quoted Schedule, deals with "u. P. Palika Engineering (Superior) Service". This provides for the post of Chief Engineers in Mahapalika, Executive Engineers in Mahapalika (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical and Automobile ). It is apparent that Serial No. 12 includes Engineering Posts of different Branches viz. , Civil, Electrical, Mechanical and Automobile. Therefore, we find no reason, to excludes Traffic and Transportation branch was incorporated later, in the Schedule given in Rule 3 of Rules 1966 as amended upto date, one shall note that qualifications are compatible with each other. It is clear that the posts mentioned against Serial No. 12 refers to the Branch of engineering and subsequent description of posts at Serial Nos. 14 and 15a, refer to different services of Engineers, i. e. Water Works Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Electrical Water Works Engineers. 16. Keeping in view the declaration of law in the aforesaid decision of Dr. Ms. O. Z. Hussain v. Union of India and Others (supra) we find petitioner, who holds post of Adhishashi Abhiyanta (Traffic and Transportation Planning) mentioned at Serial No. 15-A in the above referred Schedule, has to be considered for promotion on the post/s described at Serial No. 12 in that Schedule and accordingly the petitioner is entitled for consideration of promotion, if not already considered. 17. We, however, leave it open for the concerned competent authority to incorporate necessary amendment in the Schedule contained in Rule 3 of Centralized Service Rule, 1966 and incorporate the word traffic and Transportation in Serial No. 12 to remove doubt, if any, for consideration of Adhishashi Abhiyanta in different Branches mentioned at Serial Nos. 14 and 15a subject to possession of requisite qualification/s for the post of Chief Engineer, mentioned at Serial No. 3 in the Schedule, in question. 18. Accordingly, respondents No. 1 and 2 and all other concerned authorities are hereby commanded to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer as covered by Serial No. 12 in the Schedule given in Rule 3 of Centralized Service Rules 1966 within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment/order, if he has not been already considered for the same and in such condition the decision shall not be influenced in any matter. 19. The writ petition stands allowed subject to the above directions. No order as to costs. 19. The writ petition stands allowed subject to the above directions. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .