JUDGMENT : BHWANI SINGH, J. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of order dated 14-8-2002 passed by single Judge in W.P. No. 2023 of 2001. 2. Appellant is Deputy Director in the M. P. State Agriculture Marketing Board, Bhopal (for short Marketing Board). He seeks direction against the respondents to constitute Selection Committee under Rule 14 of the Service Regulations governing the service conditions of the appellant for promotion to the post of Joint Director in the Marketing Board. There is no dispute that the appellant is working in the Marketing Board since 1991 and after service of five years against the post of Deputy Director, he is eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director. Further, it is also undisputable that in the Marketing Board, there are six posts of Joint Director. 50% of these posts are to be filled from in-service Deputy Directors and 50% on deputation. Grievance of the appellant is that instead of holding regular Departmental Promotion Committee meeting and promoting eligible Deputy Directors, respondents fill up these vacancies by appointing persons on deputation from other Departments to the detriment of the appellant and other Deputy Directors. 3. Respondents say that out of six posts of Joint Directors, three persons are working on deputation, two have gone to their parent department while services of one have been dispensed with. Although three posts of Joint Directors are lying vacant, they do not require more Joint Directors at the moment and there is no proposal to fill up these posts. However, when need is felt to fill up these posts, eligible persons shall be considered. According to Regulation 15(2) of the Service Regulations, five times the number of posts is required to be considered for promotion and since this number is not available, the appellant can not be considered. This plea has been rejected by single Judge holding that non-availability of the requisite number of persons to constitute five times the number of the posts would not mean that available eligible persons cannot be considered for promotion for all times to come. If the number of available candidates falls short of the number required to be considered, respondents are under a duty to consider the candidates available for promotion to the posts of Joint Director as and when the exercise is undertaken. If the number of available candidates falls short of the number required to be considered, respondents are under a duty to consider the candidates available for promotion to the posts of Joint Director as and when the exercise is undertaken. With regard to contention of the respondents to consider the names of suitable candidates for promotion to the posts of Joint Directors when need is felt and no direction could be issued by the Court, single Judge held that issuance of direction may not be possible but as and when respondents propose to make promotions to the posts of Joint Director, case of the appellant be considered in accordance with the Regulation. The appellant is not satisfied with the order, therefore, it is challenged through this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard Shri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri P. Dubey, Advocate for the appellant and Shri S. L. Saxena, Senior Advocate with Shri Sanjay Bakshi, Advocate for respondents. Records and Service Regulations are perused. 4. Welfare of its own employees is one of the basic duties of a model employer. It should provide chances of promotion to its eligible employees where quota for promotion is provided from two sources - promotion and deputation, under the statutory rules and employer must not act to the prejudice of one category and favour the other thereby violating Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of the public service. It generates efficiency and fosters growth and excellence in service, otherwise service is bound to degenerate. Similar view has been taken by High Court of Delhi in H. Sahney vs. Indian Airlines, 1997 (1) SLR 357 placing reliance on Apex Court decision in Raghunath Prasad Singh vs. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, 1988 (1) SLR 347 (SC) = AIR 1988 SC 1033 and Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain vs. Union of India, 1990 (1) SLR 297 (SC). In Raghunath Prasad Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court said in paragraph 4 that :- "4. ......... Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. ......... Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. We would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organization within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. .... ." Thereafter, in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research vs. K. G. S. Bhatt, AIR 1989 SC 1972 , the Apex Court reiterated the same view. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, Court said that :- "9. ........ Although joined service with a diploma in Engineering, he later passed Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) and also acquired M. Tech. Degree and one more diploma (D.P.M.). He was, however, left without opportunity for promotion for about twenty years. This is needed a sad commentary on the appellant's management. It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organization public or private does not 'hire a hand' but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organization not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organization. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. (See : Principles of Personnel Management by Flipo Edvin B. 4th Ed. P.246). Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. "The organization that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors." (See Personnel Management by Dr. Udai Pareek p.277). There can not be any modern management much less any career planning, man-power development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions. (See : Management of Personnel in Indian Enterprises by Prof. N. N. Chatterjee, Chap 12 p. 128). Udai Pareek p.277). There can not be any modern management much less any career planning, man-power development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions. (See : Management of Personnel in Indian Enterprises by Prof. N. N. Chatterjee, Chap 12 p. 128). The appellant appears to have overlooked this basic requirement of management so far as respondent 1 was concerned till N.R. and A.S. were introduced." Then in paragraph 14, the Court said : "14. In the instant case as already noticed the respondent-1 has suffered and stagnated for about twenty years in the same scale from inception due to defective promotional policy. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the relief granted by the Tribunal although we do not agree with the views expressed on the scope of bye-law 71(b)(ii)." In V. Jagannadha Rao vs. State of A.P., 2001 (10) SCC 401 , the Apex Court observed in paragraph 22 that - "22. Notwithstanding our aforesaid conclusion, it would be in the interest of administration to have a channel of promotion for every service, so as to avoid stagnation at a particular level, subject however to the condition that the incumbents of a service are otherwise qualified to shoulder the responsibilities of the higher promotional posts. The appropriate authority of the Government, therefore, should bear this in mind and consider the feasibility and desirability of continuing the supernumerary posts already created in the Boilers and Factories Department on a permanent basis, so that the employees from the lower echelon in the said department have a promotional channel or, to make suitable promotional avenues at least up to some level, so that there would not be any discontentment amongst the employees in the Department concerned." 5. Adverting to the case, there is no dispute that there are six posts of Joint Directors in the Marketing Board, out of which 50% are to be filled by promotion and 50% by deputation. Respondents have filled four posts on deputation but in-service Deputy Directors have not been promoted to the posts of Joint Director although they are eligible and entitled to promotion against the three posts of Joint Director. Result is that in-service Deputy Directors are stagnating in the posts of Deputy Directors and are being deprived of promotions although vacancies are available. Respondents have filled four posts on deputation but in-service Deputy Directors have not been promoted to the posts of Joint Director although they are eligible and entitled to promotion against the three posts of Joint Director. Result is that in-service Deputy Directors are stagnating in the posts of Deputy Directors and are being deprived of promotions although vacancies are available. Stand of respondents that they do not require more posts of Joint Directors is belied by the fact that after making this statement on affidavit, they appointed one more Joint Director on deputation which means four Joint Director have been appointed on deputation in the Department, as is clear from orders dated 9-1-1997, 21-9-1998, 14-5-1999 and 14-8-2001. Respondents have violated the Regulations prescribing quota of promotion on 50/50% basis from in-service and deputation. Therefore, the contention that with regard to making promotions from in-service candidates, five times of posts can be considered in terms of Regulation 15(2), has rightly been rejected by single Judge. This rule is regulatory, otherwise unreasonable violating Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. Respondents should not take shelter of the Regulation and debar eligible in-service Deputy Directors from seeking promotions to the posts of Joint Director and appoint Joint Directors on deputation exceeding their quota, which it has already done. Avenues of promotion have been provided by Regulations but pity is that the respondents intend to avoid giving of promotions to its eligible in-service Deputy Directors on unsustainable grounds resulting in stagnation, inefficiency and despondency. At the level of Deputy Directors also, position is stated to be more curious where officers are being brought on deputation in large number stagnating the in-service candidates. All this should be avoided. Time has come when respondents should necessarily take steps to consider in-service Deputy Directors for promotion to the posts of Joint Director and revert back one Joint Director to his parent Department since filling up more than three posts on deputation is against the regulations and, therefore, illegal. In case, the respondents do not want to fill up more posts in the cadre of Joint Directors, the number it wants to fill up must be divided equally between the two categories so that there is no heart burning amongst officers. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that they do not want to fill up more posts of Joint Directors due to financial check. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that they do not want to fill up more posts of Joint Directors due to financial check. The appellant submits that financial statement of the Marketing Board does not show that the Marketing Board is in financial crisis. The defences taken by the Marketing Board are simply to avoid promotions of in-service Deputy Directors and assuming that the Marketing Board wants to limit expenditure, it can do so by filling up posts of Joint Directors equally. We agree with this submission. The respondents have exceeded the quota provided for deputation as there are four Joint Directors from this category while none has been promoted from out of in-service Deputy Directors. 8. The result of aforesaid discussion is that this appeal is allowed. Respondents are directed to fill up post(s) of Joint Director by promotion from in-service Deputy Directors in accordance with the Regulations and observations made above, within two months.