JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:—Heard Mr. Anjan De, learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: "i) direct by issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and to promote him as Junior Engineer from August, 1977, giving benefit of 3/8th service in view of the Government Resolution, and according to the seniority be promoted as Asstt. Engineer; 1-A.Direct the respondent to promote the petitioner giving him retrospective deemed date promotion and all other consequential benefits, that accrues to the petitioner as a result of such deemed date promotion including seniority, arrears of pay and allowances etc. ii) by issuing a writ of mandamus against respondent directing him to promote and appoint the petitioners as Assistant Engineer from the year 1982 as Junior Engineer, those who were juniors in 1977 got promotion in 1982." 3.The petitioner was appointed as a sub-Engineer in the respondent/M.S.E.B. by an order dated 20-6-1972. The petitioner was Diploma holder (Electrical) at that time. He had passed A.M.I.E. (Associate Member of Institute of Engineers) in August 1980. He was appointed and promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on 30-5-1981. The employees of the M.S.E.B. are governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Classification and Recruitment Regulations, 1961 framed under the provisions of Electricity Supply Act, 1948. A.M.I.E. is considered to be equivalent to the Degree. The petitioner was also promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1997. 4.One S.G. Thombre was appointed as a Sub-Engineer in the year 1968 and was having the qualification of Diploma in Engineering. He was promoted as Junior Engineer on the basis of his seniority in the year 1978. He had acquired the qualification of A.M.I.E. in August, 1983 and was treated at par with the Degree-holders and consequently was promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from 18-6-1983. Similarly, one Mohanlal Rathor, who was also a Diploma-holder, was appointed as Sub-Engineer in the year 1967. His case was also considered for promotion and consequently he was promoted as Junior Engineer in the year 1978. He had acquired the qualification of A.M.I.E. in 1980 and since A.M.I.E. is considered to be equivalent to degree, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from 18-6-1983. His case was also considered for promotion and consequently he was promoted as Junior Engineer in the year 1978. He had acquired the qualification of A.M.I.E. in 1980 and since A.M.I.E. is considered to be equivalent to degree, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from 18-6-1983. 5.The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he had acquired the qualification of A.M.I.E. in 1980, he was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and instead he was appointed and promoted as Junior Engineer on 30-5-1981. He ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer along with Shri S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor. The petitioner contended that the seniority list of Junior Engineers for the year 1991 would indicate that the graduates of 1983 who have joined in 1983 are shown at Sr. No. 1851 onwards and Shrikant Jaltare is shown at Sr. No. 1851. He is promoted as Assistant Engineer by an order dated 16-5-2001. If he would have been considered as a graduate at par with the graduates of 1983, he would have been shown in the seniority of Junior Engineers of 1991 between 1850 and 1936 and would have been promoted as Assistant Engineer in 2001. Similarly, in the first of Junior Engineers of 1991, graduates of 1980 are shown at Sr. Nos. 1375 to 1577 and the employees at Sr. No. 1376 onwards are promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers by an order dated 17-5-1997. If he would have considered as a graduate at par with 1980 graduates he would have been shown in the seniority list of Junior Engineer of 1991 between Sr. Nos. 1375 and 1577 and would have been promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1997. 6.Mr. Anjan De, learned Counsel for the petitioner, further contended that all the Diploma holders in the employment of the respondent were given enblock promotion in the year 1981 and the case of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, especially when he acquired the qualification of A.M.I.E. in the year 1980 and, therefore, there was a discrimination in between the petitioner and Shri S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor, who were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 18-6-1983. He contended that all the graduates engineers of 1977 were promoted as Assistant Engineers in 1983 and, therefore, Shri Thombre has been shown in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers at Sr. No. 409, whereas Mohanlal Rathor who also deemed to have been promoted from the date 18-6-1983 by virtue of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 780 of 1990 and he was shown at Sr. No. 408. Whereas the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in 1997 though he was entitled to the promotion and monetary benefits with effect from 18-6-1983 at par with Shri S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor. He vehemently argued that Shri S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor were considered as graduates at par with the graduates of the same year on acquiring the qualification of A.M.I.E., but they have been given weightage and considered to be the graduates of 1977. Therefore, in view of the Government Resolution No. ESC/1480/8/RT Mantralaya, Bombay, dated 16th October, 1981, the petitioner is entitled to the weightage of 3/8th previous service as non-graduate engineer and after acquiring the qualification of A.M.I.E. in the year 1980 he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1983. 7.Mr. De, learned Counsel, further contended that the petitioner has been discriminated because he was the senior most Sub-Engineer and he would have been promoted as Junior Engineer in the year 1978. Therefore, this is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for granting the deemed date of promotion and other consequential benefits including further promotion, seniority, arrears of pay and allowances, etc. 8.Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel, for the respondent contended that the employees of the respondent/Board are governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Classification and Recruitment Regulations, 1961. The Electricity Board is an autonomous body and has framed the Rules and Regulations for governing the service conditions of its employees. He contended that there is no provision for computation of any benefit of 3/8th service to any employee of the Board under the Rules. None of the employees has been given any benefit of 3/8th service in view of the Government Resolution. He contended that there is no provision for computation of any benefit of 3/8th service to any employee of the Board under the Rules. None of the employees has been given any benefit of 3/8th service in view of the Government Resolution. He further contended that the Government Resolution No. ESC/1480/8/RT dated 16-10-1981 issued by the Government of Maharashtra has not been adopted by the M.S.E.B. and as such is not applicable. He contended that the promotions were given on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and there was no discrimination amongst any of the employees, muchless the petitioner and S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor at any point of time. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel, further contended that Shri S.G. Thombre was appointed as Sub-Engineer in 1968 and he was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in 1978 in due course of time as per seniority, whereas the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Engineer in 1972 and, therefore, was junior to Thombre in the post of Sub-Engineer. Shri Thombre acquired the qualification of A.M.I.E. while working as Junior Engineer, whereas the petitioner acquired A.M.I.E. qualification in August, 1980. While working as Sub-Engineer, the petitioner was benefited of passing the A.M.I.E. Examination and, as such, he was appointed and promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on 30-5-1981 along with graduate engineers. Shri S.G. Thombre was treated as degree holder while working as Junior Engineer on acquiring A.M.I.E. qualification and was accordingly promoted as Assistant Engineer as a degree holder and hence there is no basis for comparison of the petitioner with Shri S.G. Thombre. 9.Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel, further contended that Mohanlal Rathor acquired the qualification of A.M.I.E. while working as Junior Engineer in 1980 and was treated as Degree-holder and he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 18-6-1983 in accordance with his seniority as degree holder. In view of these facts, it was apparent that the petitioner was much junior to Mohanlal Rathor in the post of Sub-Engineer as he was appointed Sub-Engineer in the year 1967. Mohanlal Rathor was promoted as Junior Engineer in the year 1978 whereas the petitioner was appointed and promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in the month of May, 1981 and hence there is absolutely no substance in the contention of the petitioner that his case ought to have been considered at par with Mohanlal. Mohanlal Rathor was promoted as Junior Engineer in the year 1978 whereas the petitioner was appointed and promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in the month of May, 1981 and hence there is absolutely no substance in the contention of the petitioner that his case ought to have been considered at par with Mohanlal. 10.We have carefully considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for both the sides. It is not disputed that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent/Board in the year 1972 as Diploma-holder. It is also not disputed that Shri S.G. Thombre joined the service of the respondent as Sub-Engineer in 1968 and Mohanlal Rathor joined the service of respondent as Sub-Engineer in 1967 and he was Diploma holder at that time. The seniority list of Sub-Engineers has not been placed on record. If the year of appointment of all the three persons is taken into consideration then it would clearly reveal that Shri S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor must have been pretty senior to the petitioner in the year 1972 when he had joined the respondent/Board as Sub-Engineer holding Diploma in Engineering. Thus, there is no dispute that the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list of Junior Engineer was much below than the aforesaid Shri S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor. 11.It is also not disputed that Shri S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor were promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the year 1978, whereas the petitioner was not under the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer in the year 1978. It is also not disputed that Shri Thombre acquired A.M.I.E. qualification in August, 1983 whereas Mohanlal Rathor and the petitioner acquired A.M.I.E. qualification in the year 1980. It is also undisputed that Shri Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 18-6-1983 and their promotion was strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. However, Mohanlal Rathor was given deemed date of promotion with effect from 18-6-1983 in consequence of the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 780 of 1990. At this point of time also the petitioner was not under the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer being much junior to S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor. However, Mohanlal Rathor was given deemed date of promotion with effect from 18-6-1983 in consequence of the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 780 of 1990. At this point of time also the petitioner was not under the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer being much junior to S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor. 12.It is not in dispute that the petitioner had made the first representation on 16-8-1982, second representation on 16-1-1983 and third representation on 15-4-1983 to the respondent wherein he has contended that he was entitled to the weightage of 3/8th previous service as non-graduate engineer and on acquiring the qualification of A.M.I.E. in 1980 he is entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and consequential placement in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers of 1983. But then the petitioner did not place on record any material from which it could be said that on the basis of seniority he was entitled to be considered for the promotion of Assistant Engineer in 1983 especially when he was too junior to S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor. The respondent has placed on record the counter affidavit dated 9-9-2002 and the affidavit dated 10-6-2002 of Dinkar Ramji Jadhao who was working as Deputy Establishment Officer in the office of the respondent wherein it has been made clear that the Government Resolution dated 16-10-1981 has not been adopted by the Board nor any of the employee has been given benefit of 3/8th previous service. In the affidavit it has been mentioned in paras 4 and 5 as under: "4. I say that so far as the first point regarding seniority list of Junior Engineer from 1982 onwards is concerned, the seniority list of Junior Engineer as on 31-3-80, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 2001 will be placed before the Honble Court at the time of hearing. Further the seniority list pertaining to 1982 to 1987, 1992, 1998, 1999 and 2000 could not become available. The petitioner was not promoted as Junior Engineer till 5-3-1981 and, therefore, his name does not figure in the seniority list of 1980. However, the name of Shri Rathore and Shri Thombare appears at Serial Nos. 377 and 597 respectively, in this seniority list prepared as on 31-3-1980. I say that the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. The petitioner was not promoted as Junior Engineer till 5-3-1981 and, therefore, his name does not figure in the seniority list of 1980. However, the name of Shri Rathore and Shri Thombare appears at Serial Nos. 377 and 597 respectively, in this seniority list prepared as on 31-3-1980. I say that the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No. 1244 in the seniority list of Junior Engineers (T D) prepared as on 31-3-1988. 5. So far as the second item regarding minutes of Competent Selection Committee from 1982 onwards till date are concerned, there are total 28 Panel Reporters which are being produced in original during the course of argument. In this respect, it is stated here that the petitioner for the first time came in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on the basis of his seniority in the post of Junior Engineer, in the meeting of the Competent Selection Committee held on 26-3-1997. That prior to this date, there was no question of consideration of the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer as neither any of his juniors in the seniority list of Junior Engineers were considered and promoted nor the petitioner was within the zone of consideration at that time. It is stated here that in the very first meeting of the Competent Selection Committee held after the petitioner came within the zone of consideration, the petitioner was selected as an Assistant Engineer and was granted promotion as a Degree-holder. The original minutes held on 23-6-1997 are also being produced at the time of arguments for perusal of the Honble Court only and not for showing it to the petitioner or his Counsel." 13.The stand taken by the respondent/Board that the petitioner was considered for appointment and promotion to the post of Junior Engineer on the basis of his acquiring A.M.I.E. qualification in the year 1980, appears to be correct. Though all the Diploma-holders were given promotion to the post of Junior Engineer enblock along with the petitioner in the year 1981, it did not follow that he was under the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1983. Though all the Diploma-holders were given promotion to the post of Junior Engineer enblock along with the petitioner in the year 1981, it did not follow that he was under the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1983. 14.It is not disputed that under Entry No. 4 in Schedule A/1 appended to the Classification and Recruitment Regulations, the minimum qualification and experience required for the post of Assistant Engineer is as follows: Qualification : Degree in Electrical/Mechanical/Telecommunication Engineering of an Indian or Foreign University or its equivalent, or Diploma in Electrical/Mechanical Engineering of the State Council of Technical Education of Maharashtra State or its equivalent (Preference to Degree holder or its equivalent) Qualification for direct recruitment only: Similar to that of Dy.E.E. (E M). Experience: Not less than 3 years (5 years in case of Diploma holders) experience in Electrical or Mechanical Engineering works or in a technical office dealing in design, construction and operation of transmission and distribution systems or field experience in generating station or transmission and distribution system or experience in commercial aspects such as load survey tariff calculations, power sales development. It is not disputed that the employees who acquire A.M.I.E. qualification would be considered at par with the Degree holders. It would clearly reveal that the Competent Selection Committee is required to consider the cases of the employees who are under the zone of the consideration. The seniority lists are also published from time to time. At this juncture, it may be useful to reproduce the relevant Rules from the Classification and Recruitment Regulations, 1961 which read as under: "20. For the purposes of the above Regulations the Board may from time to time constitute different Selection Committees to select and recommend candidates for appointments to posts in respective Pay Group under the Board. 21. The Election Committee may, besides selecting and recommending candidates, also recommend in deserving cases grant of higher starting pay, condonation of physical defect and/or relaxation of age limit and educational or other qualifications. 22. In the case of departmental promotions to posts other than key posts such as Heads of Departments and those declared as selection posts persons who are senior most in the seniority list will ordinarily be considered for selection. The following principles shall normally be followed in making departmental promotions. 22. In the case of departmental promotions to posts other than key posts such as Heads of Departments and those declared as selection posts persons who are senior most in the seniority list will ordinarily be considered for selection. The following principles shall normally be followed in making departmental promotions. A.(a) No employee shall be promoted to a higher post unless his record shows that he possesses the necessary positive qualifications for the higher post such as personality, professional qualification, initiative, strength of character and readiness to assume individual responsibility. (b) No employee who possesses the positive qualifications referred to in (a) above shall be passed over by a person junior to him unless the latter has, in addition, exceptional ability or qualifications; (c) In assessing the merits of employees on comparative basis for the purpose of principles (a) and (b) above, the ability, energy, initiative, integrity, sense of responsibility etc. of the employees concerned should be taken into consideration over a series of years wherever possible and judgment should be formed upon carefully considering reports of at least three different superior officers wherever possible." 15.Bare reading of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations in respect of promotion would reveal that for promotion the Board is required to take into consideration the recommendations of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee has to form its opinion on the basis of not only seniority but also the service record showing that he possesses the necessary positive qualification for the higher post, such as personality, professional qualifications initiative, strength of character and readiness to assume individual responsibility and also in assessing the merits of the employees on comparative basis and while doing so the ability, energy, initiative, integrity, sense of responsibility etc. of the employees concerned should be taken into consideration over a series of years wherever possible and judgment should be formed after carefully considering reports of at least three different superior officers wherever possible. In such circumstances, the assumption of the petitioner that no sooner he acquired the A.M.I.E. qualification in 1980, which is equivalent of degree, he ought to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer is clearly erroneous and misconceived. In such circumstances, the assumption of the petitioner that no sooner he acquired the A.M.I.E. qualification in 1980, which is equivalent of degree, he ought to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer is clearly erroneous and misconceived. The petitioner was neither senior to S.G. Thombre nor to Mohanlal Rathor and there is no material placed on record to show that while recommending the aforesaid two persons, S.G. Thombre and Mohanlal Rathor, the Selection Committee had arbitrarily recommended them or that the service record of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. In fact, the petitioner did not come within the zone of the consideration because of his placement in the seniority list of Junior Engineers, much below the aforesaid two persons in consequence of the fact that he was too junior in the cadre of Sub-Engineer. 16.On careful consideration of the entire material placed on record, we are of the considered view that the petitioner was not within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1983 and, therefore, the question of promoting him and giving deemed date of promotion does not arise. The entire claim of the petitioner is ill-founded, misconceived, de hors of the Rules and Regulations, not based on any material on record and, therefore this Court is left with no alternative except to reject his contention that he has been discriminated while granting promotion to the post of Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no order as to costs. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed. -----