JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner who at the relevant time was working as Assistant Project Manager (Junior Engineer) in the office of the Orissa Police Housing Welfare Corporation has filed both the writ applications. In O.J.C. No. 6037 of 1996 the peti¬tioner has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party No. 1 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Project Manager (Assistant Engineer) from that of the Project Manager (Junior Engineer) with effect from 13.6.94 and pay him the salary benefits, etc. and O.J.C. No. 12000 of 1998 has been filed by him for a direction to the Opposite party No. 1 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Project Manager and for a further direction not to give any more promotions to any person till disposal of the writ application and also for declaration that the promotion of Opposite party No. 2 is illegal and liable to be struck down. 2. From the averments made in both the writ applications it appears that the petitioner first joined as Assistant Project Manger (Junior Engineer) in the office of the Opposite party No. 1 on 27.1.1989 on ad hoc basis on a consolidated pay for a period of 44 days and with one day break such appointment was revived from time to time and continued till 23.9.1991 with effect from 23.9.1991 service of the petitioner was regularised with grade pay of Rs. 1400-2600/-. While continuing in service petitioner was allowed increments due to him. The petitioner applied to became a senior technician member under the Institute of Engineers while serving under Opposite party No. 1 and subsequently he appeared in the examination in 1991 and completed the course in 1993 and obtained a certificate of degree in Civil Engineering. For the purpose of appearing in the said examination the peti¬tioner had also obtained necessary permission from authorities while on deputation. On 24.11.1995 the petitioner was taken back to the parent department. After completing the AMIE the petition¬er made his representation on 13.6.1994 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Project Manager (Assistant Engi¬neer) and while the said representation was under consideration, two persons namely Gourahari Pradhan and Abesh Kumar Mohanty were promoted to the post of Deputy Project Manager on 28.6.1994 and the case of the petitioner was ignored. The specific stand of the petitioner is that the aforesaid two officers had been regula¬rised in service with effect from 1.1.1994 as Assistant (Project Managers, whereas the petitioner’s service was regularised with effect from 23.9.1991 and as such his seniority above them could not have been ignored. Further allegation is that besides the above two other Junior Engineers, namely Chandrabhanu Choudhury and Susanta Paikray who were juniors to the petitioner were also illegally given promotion to the Deputy Project Manager. After the aforesaid promotions were made the petitioner submitted several representations requesting the authorities to consider his case. The same having not been considered he has approached this Court. During Pendency of O.J.C. No. 6037 of 1996, one Parsuram Pani¬grahi was given promotion for which O.J.C. No. 12000 of 1998 was filed. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Opp. Party No. 1 and it is the case of the Opp. Party No. 1 that Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 16th, 17th and 20th of June, 1994 for the first time to consider case of the eligible officers for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. The Committee decided that those Assistant Project Manager (Junior Engineers) who have got diploma in Civil Engineering and had completed 10 years of serv¬ice were to be brought to the zone of the consideration for the purpose of promotion and those Assistant Project Managers who had degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent qualification at the time of their engagement in the Corporation and had completed at least 5 years of service from the date of acquisition of degree were also to be brought to the zone of consideration for the purpose of promotion. The petitioner having obtained the degree in Civil Engineering in the year 1993 and having not completed five years service from the said dated when the D.P.C. met for the first time in the year 1994, his case could not be considered for promotion. So far as promotion of Parsuram Panigrahi (Opp. Party No. 2 in O.J.C. No. 12000 of 1998) is concerned, it is stated in the counter filed therein by the Opp. Party No. 1 that Sri Parsuram Panigrahi was appointed as Junior Engineer on 24.5.1988 on ad hoc basis and was awarded grade scale of pay on regular basis with effect from 21.3.1990. Party No. 2 in O.J.C. No. 12000 of 1998) is concerned, it is stated in the counter filed therein by the Opp. Party No. 1 that Sri Parsuram Panigrahi was appointed as Junior Engineer on 24.5.1988 on ad hoc basis and was awarded grade scale of pay on regular basis with effect from 21.3.1990. It is also stated in the counter affidavit in the said writ application that promotional channel of Sri Panigrahi is distinct and separate than that of the petitioner and therefore while considering case of Sri Pani¬grahi the petitioner’s case could not have been considered as he does not belong to that stream. Sri Panigrahi being the only eligible officer for the purpose of promotion, his case was considered and promotion was allowed by the D.P.C. of 1998. 4. Shri Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the peti¬tioner is both the writ applications submitted that as per the provisions contained in Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941 only diploma holders in Engineering having 10 years service could be considered for promotion. There being no provision for Degree holders in such Rules, decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider case of the Degree holders having five years experience from the date of obtaining degree cannot be accepted as the eligibility for promotion and therefore the promotion given to several persons on the basis of such decision cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that though the Rules are silent about promotion of Degree Holders, the Departmental Promotion Committee was of the view that if 10 years of experience is insisted upon in respect of Junior Engineers irrespective of the fact that as to whether they are diploma holders or degree holders, great injustice would be done to the degree holders and accordingly decision was taken to consider cases of those degree holder, Junior Engineers for the purpose of promotion after they have completed 5 years in service from the date of obtaining degree or had obtained degree at the time of joining of the Corporation and had completed five years experience as Junior Engineer. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner in both the writ applications and the officeers, indicated earlier were working as Junior Engineers in the Corporation. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner in both the writ applications and the officeers, indicated earlier were working as Junior Engineers in the Corporation. There is also no dispute that all of them were initially appointed on ad hoc basis and subsequently were regularised and were allowed to grade scale of pay. Rule 16 of Orissa Service Engineers Rules, 1941 (hereinafter called as ‘the Rules’) only speaks of promotion of diploma hold¬ers working as Junior Engineers who have completed 10 years of service. Admittedly Rule 16 is silent about the degree holders. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the degree holders with experience less than 10 years could be given promotion considering their qualification in comparison to the qualification of diploma holders. We called for the D.P.C. re¬cords of 1994-95 to find out the basis on which such a decision was taken by the Committee. Pursuant to our direction both the D.P.C. records were placed before us. From the discussions made in the records, it appears that in absence of any rule for degree holders the Committee was of the view that the degree holders cannot be equated with that of diploma holders for the purpose of promotion and relaxation with regard to experience should be given to degree holders and accordingly it was decided that those who joined service as degree holders and have completed five years experi¬ence as Junior Engineers or those who obtained degree in course of employment and have completed five years from the date of obtaining such degree, would be considered for the purpose of promotion to the next higher grade. Looking at the reasons as¬signed in the proceedings of the D.P.C. we are also of the view that the reasonable classification is permissible and degree holders and diploma holders could not have been considered on the same footing. We are, therefore, of the view that no illegality has been committed by the Departmental Promotion Committee in taking such a decision and considering case of diploma holders or degree holders in terms of the decision taken. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained degree in the year 1993 while in service. We are, therefore, of the view that no illegality has been committed by the Departmental Promotion Committee in taking such a decision and considering case of diploma holders or degree holders in terms of the decision taken. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained degree in the year 1993 while in service. So far as first D.P.C. is concerned, the Committee met in the year 1994 and by that time the petitioner had neither completed 10 years of service as diploma holder nor had completed five years of service from the date of obtaining degree. We are, therefore, of the view that the D.P.C. was right in not considering the case of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Other officers who had been given promotion were either diploma holders or degree holders having requisite experience depending on the qualification they had and therefore their cases were considered by the D.P.C. for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers. We also do not find any illegality in such a decision taken by the D.P.C. 6. So far as Sri Panigrahi (Opp. Party No. 2 in O.J.C. No. 12000 of 1998) is concerned from the D.P.C. records as well as the averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears that he belongs to a different discipline and the petitioner’s case could not have been considered along with Sri Panigrahi. It was contended by Sri Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner that Sri Panigrahi even though belongs to a different discipline could be given promotion in spite of the fact that he did not have requisite experience and therefore there was no reason for the D.P.C to consider the case of the petitioner. From the D.P.C records as well as from the statements made in the counter-affidavit and the additional affidavit filed by the Corporation, it appears that in the discipline of Sri Panigrahi, he was only person to be considered from promotion and even though he did not have requisite years of service, his case was considered for promotion as the sole candidate available for promotion. There is no doubt that there has been a deviation from the Rule so far as the Sri Panigrahi is concerned, but that will not be the ground for directing the Opp. There is no doubt that there has been a deviation from the Rule so far as the Sri Panigrahi is concerned, but that will not be the ground for directing the Opp. Party No. 1 to consider case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from 1994 since admittedly by that time the petitioner neither had requisite experience as diploma holder nor as a degree holder. Moreover in O.J.C. No. 6037 of 1996 the petitioner has not challenged promotion of Opposite parties 3 and 4 and has only prayed for a direction to consider his case for promotion. 7. In view of the discussions made above we do not find any illegality having been committed by the Corporation in consid¬ering cases of opposite parties 3 and 4 n O.J.C.No. 6037 of 1996 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer or taking a decision to consider cases of those degree holders who joined service as such and had completed five years of experience or those who obtained degree while in service and had completed five years experience from the date of obtaining such degree. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the writ applications and the same are dismissed. However, it is observed that since the petitioner has in the meantime obtained requisite experience, the Corporation may consider his case for the net D.P.C. that may meet for the purpose of promotion of Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Applications dismissed.