Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 858 (RAJ)

Hanuman Prasad Lata v. State of Rajasthan

2003-05-30

K.S.RATHORE, S.K.KESHOTE

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Hanuman Prasad, a Junior Engineer, posted on deputation in the Urban Land & Building Tax Department, Rajasthan Jaipur, Officer of the Department of Agriculture Production, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging therein the validity of the Notificating No. E1(8) DOP/A-11/79 Dated 22.10.1994 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan Department of Personnel, Agr. II, Jaipur. This document is there as Annexure-4 to the writ petition at page No. 25. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan made following amendment in the Rajasthan Agricultures Service Rules, 1960 (for short, the Rules, 1960) which reads. "The existing expression 'Provided they possess Degree in Civil Engineering with 5 years experience of the post of Junior Engineer, or (2) Diploma in Civil Engineering with 10 years experience on the post of Junior Engineer provided further that 40% of the posts to be filled in by promotion quota will be filled by Degree Holder and 60% by Diploma Holders till the Diploma Holders holding the post of Junior Engineer are exhausted", occurring in Col. 8 against S.No. 14 under the head "SECTION-Ill AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING" of the Schedule appended to the said Rules shall be substituted by the following w.e.f. 1.4.1991, namely : "Provided they possess Degree in Civil or Mechanical Engineering of a University established by Law in India with 5 years experience on the post mentioned in Col. 5. OR Diploma in Civil or Mechanical Engineering of a recognised Institution with 10 years experience on the post mentioned in Col. 5. Provided further that 60% of the post to be filled in by promotion quota will be filled by Degree Holders and 40% by Diploma Holders till the Diploma Holders holding the post of Junior Engineer are exhausted." 3. A mere perusal of this amendment in the Rule, 1960 gives out that the ratio of promotion between the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers and Degree Holder Junior Engineers to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer has been changed. Earlier it was 60% for the Diploma Holder Junior Engineer and 40% was for the Degree Holder Junior Engineer. A mere perusal of this amendment in the Rule, 1960 gives out that the ratio of promotion between the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers and Degree Holder Junior Engineers to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer has been changed. Earlier it was 60% for the Diploma Holder Junior Engineer and 40% was for the Degree Holder Junior Engineer. By this amendment, brought into force w.e.f. 1st of April, 1991 this ratio has been changed from 60%-40% to 40%-60% amongst these categories of Junior Engineers. The prayer has been made in the writ petition for striking down this Notification as is being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, secondly that it has taken away the vested/accrued right of the Diploma Holders Junior Engineers. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the entire scheme of the Rules, 1960. 4. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents. Their defence is that after 1st of April, 1989 there was no vacant post in the Department of the Assistant Engineer to be filled in through the promotion till April, 1991-92. Thus, no D.P.C. meeting could take place and in the year 1991-92 and 1994-95 posts were available and therefore D.P.C. meeting had taken place. The year wise vacancies were determined w.e.f. 1.4.1990 and promotions were given. It is denied that the petitioner would have come in the zone of consideration. Zone of consideration goes high only where the vacancies are more in number and not when the vacancies are less in number. The total number of posts on which promotions were to be given to the Junior Engineers Diploma Holders through the D.P.C. were only 14 and not 23. When total number of posts were only 14 for the Diploma Holders Junior Engineers the zone of consideration could have gone upto 42 i.e. three times of the total number of post while the name of the petitioner was undisputedly at serial number 61 in seniority list. 5. Additional affidavit has been filed after rejoinder to the reply field by the petitioner. In the additional affidavit the detail has been given out of the year wise number of vacancies which have been filled from amongst the Degree Holders and Diploma Holder junior engineers. In the year 1991-92 total 36 posts of Assistant Engineers were available to be filled in. In the additional affidavit the detail has been given out of the year wise number of vacancies which have been filled from amongst the Degree Holders and Diploma Holder junior engineers. In the year 1991-92 total 36 posts of Assistant Engineers were available to be filled in. Out of which, 22 posts were filled in from the Degree Holder junior engineers and 14 posts were filled in from the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers. In the year 1994-95 there were total 27 posts of Assistant Engineers available to be filled in by promotion. Out of those, 16 posts were filled in from the Degree Holder junior engineers and 11 posts were filled in from the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers. 6. Shri R.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that this retrospective effect given to the amendment in the Rules, 1960 is bad in law. It is submitted that though the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India can be given retrospective effect but there is an exception carved out to this general rule and vested/accrued rights under the existing rules cannot be permitted to be taken away. Making reference to the Rules, 1960 Shri R.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that a right has been accrued to the petitioner of promotion against the prescribed quota of promotion fixed thereunder for Diploma Holders Junior Engineers. In support of his contentions Shri R.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the following decisions : 1. 1994(5) SCC 450 , Union of India & Ors. v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty & Others 2. 1997(6) SCC 623 , Chairman Railway Board & Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. . 3. AIR 2003 SC 43 , P. Tulsi Das v. Government of A.P. 7. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the Governor of Rajasthan exercises legislative functions under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and thereunder it is permissible to frame a Rule giving retrospective effect. It has next been contended that none of the vested/accrued right of the petitioner has been taken away by this amendment in the service Rules. In support of his contention, Shri Azad Ahmed has placed reliance on the following decisions; 1. AIR 1997 SC 1803 , Dr. Ramutu & Ano. v. Dr. S. Surya Prakash Rao & Ors. 2. It has next been contended that none of the vested/accrued right of the petitioner has been taken away by this amendment in the service Rules. In support of his contention, Shri Azad Ahmed has placed reliance on the following decisions; 1. AIR 1997 SC 1803 , Dr. Ramutu & Ano. v. Dr. S. Surya Prakash Rao & Ors. 2. RLR 2001(1) 500, Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and Ano. v. Rajendra Shri Azad Ahmed produced for the perusal of the court of letter No.F2(3)/R-Amend/R. Agr./P-7/929 Dated 23.1.2003 of the Joint Director, ;Admn.), Agriculture Department addressed to Shri R.D. Choudhary, Agriculture Research Officer (Officer-incharge), Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur. The copy of this letter has been given to the counsel for the petitioner. This document is taken on record and marked in red ink as Court document No. 1. This has been sent with reference to this writ petition. 8. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. From the Court Document No. 1 we find that in the month of October, 1991 in the respondent Department total 450 Junior Engineers were working. Out of these, 450 Junior Engineers in the Department, 80 Junior Engineers were Diploma Holder and 370 Junior Engineers were Degree Holder. Prior to the amendment in the Rules, 1960 by the Notification dated 22.10.1994 with effect from 1st of April, 1991 the ratio of promotion between the Diploma Holder and Degree Holder Junior Engineers was 60%-40%. Looking to the number of Diploma Holder and Degree Holder Junior Engineers in the respondent Department, there should have been a grievance from the Degree Holder Junior Engineers against the higher percentage of the post of Assistant Engineers reserved for promotion from the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers. This ratio of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Department from the post of Diploma Holder and Degree Holder Junior Engineers should have been in the proportion of the number of the posts in the respective categories. Providing 60% promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers (though the total number of Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, out of 450 posts of Junior Engineers, were 80 in the month of October, 1991 whereas the remaining 370 Junior Engineers were Degree Holder) is not only excessive but disadvantageous to the Degree Holder Junior Engineers. Providing 60% promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers (though the total number of Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, out of 450 posts of Junior Engineers, were 80 in the month of October, 1991 whereas the remaining 370 Junior Engineers were Degree Holder) is not only excessive but disadvantageous to the Degree Holder Junior Engineers. If we go by this ratio of promotion amongst these two categories of the Junior Engineers in the Department to the higher post, the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers would get more promotions than the Degree Holder Junior Engineers despite of possessing lower qualification also. 10. The representation submitted by the registered Association of the Degree Holder Junior Engineers was required. to be considered by the respondents and that had been considered and substance was found therein. Looking to the number of posts of Diploma Holder and Degree Holder Junior Engineers working in the respondent Department as on 1.4.1991, providing 60% promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers from the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers was certainly excessive. The factual position re number of Junior Engineer Diploma Holder and Degree Holder is not disputed by Shri R.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. The Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India have effect subject to the provisions of the Act made by the appropriate legislature under the main part of Article 309. In the absence of any Act of the appropriate legislature on the matter the rules made under the proviso to Article 309 are to have full. effect both prospectively and retrospectively. The Governor of the State in exercise of his powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India can make rules which may have prospective or retrospective operation, the said rules may be open to challenge on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. The Governor of the State. under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution partakes the character of the legislature and it is open to him to give retrospective operation to the rules made under that provision. 12. The Governor of the State. under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution partakes the character of the legislature and it is open to him to give retrospective operation to the rules made under that provision. 12. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa, 1974 (1) SCC 19 , considered some what an identical amendment in the Engineering Service Rules of that State. In that case the matter for consideration before their Lordships was that the Rules had been framed altering the criteria of eligibility of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer and the same were challenged on the ground of retrospectivity by the Assistant Engineers who were in service on the date of making of these rules. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed it is wrong to characterise the operation of the service rules as retrospective for the reason that it applies to existing employees. A rule which classifies such employees for promotional purposes, undoubtedly operates on those who entered in service before the framing of the rule but it operates in future, in the sense that it governs the future right of promotion of those who are already in service. Their Lordships further observed that the impugned rules do not recall a promotion already made or reduce a pay scale already granted. They provide for a classification by prescribing a qualitative standard, the measure of that standard being educational attainment. Whether a classification founded on such a consideration suffers from a discriminatory vice is another matter which we will presently consider but surely, the rule cannot first be assumed to be retrospective and then be struck down for the reason that it violates the guarantee of equal opportunity by extending its arms over the past. If the rules governing conditions of service cannot ever operate to the prejudice of those who are already in service, the age of superannuation should have remained immutable and schemes of compulsory retirement in public interest ought to have foundered on the rock of retroactivity. But such is not the implication of service rules nor is it their true description to say that because they affect existing employees they are retrospective. 13. But such is not the implication of service rules nor is it their true description to say that because they affect existing employees they are retrospective. 13. In the case of Chairman, Railway Board & Others v. C.R. Rangdhamaiah & Others, (1997) 6 SCC 623 , the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 20 at page No. 637 thereof said that a rule which operates in future so as to govern future rights of those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retrospectivity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule which seeks to reserve from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted or availed of, e.g., promotion or pay scale, can be assailed of being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. 14. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any rule framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, seeks to reverse from anterior date any benefit which has been granted or availed of can be assailed as violative of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. 15. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, (1983) 2 SCC 33 , their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at page 62 and para No. 52 thereof, held that the legislature is, undoubtedly, competent to legislate with retrospective effect to take away or impair any vested right acquired under existing laws but since the laws are made under a written Constitution and have no conform to the do's and don'ts of the Constitution, neither prospective nor retrospective laws can be made so as to contravene fundamental rights. The law must satisfy the requirements of the Constitution taking into account the accrued or acquired rights of the parties today. The law cannot say, 20 years ago the parties will have no right,therefore, the requirement of the Constitution will satisfy if the law is dated back by 20 years. We are concerned with today's rights and not yesterday's. A Legislature cannot legislate today with reference to a situation that obtained twenty years ago and ignore the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued in the course of 20 years. We are concerned with today's rights and not yesterday's. A Legislature cannot legislate today with reference to a situation that obtained twenty years ago and ignore the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued in the course of 20 years. That would be most arbitrary, unreasonable and a negation of history. A person joins a service under Government. The relation between him and Government is in the nature of statutory rather than contractual and the terms of his service while in employment are governed by statute or statutory rules, which may be altered without consent of the employees. On appointment to a post or office, the Government servant acquires a state and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and latered unilaterally. This has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889 and in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa (supra). In the case of Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah (supra) the matter was with respect to retrospective amendment of the statutory rules adversely affecting the pension of the employees, who stood retired on the date of the Notification. In the context of affecting adversely the pension of the employees the matter was considered with reference to the expressions "vested right or accrued right" in the case of Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangdhamaiah (supra). Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 24 at page 638, observed. In many of these decision the expressions "vested rights" or "accrued rights" have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." 16. Shri R.K Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, making reference to the provisions of the Rules, 1960 and more particularly Rule 10, sub-rules (1) & (2) thereof, Rule 24, Rule 25, sub-rules (9) & (11-A) of Rule 25-A of the Rules, 1960 contended that by this retrospective amendment in the Rules under the impugned Notification the vested/accrued right of the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers to have the ratio of promotion of 60% has been taken away. 17. Rule 10 of the Rules, 1960 is a provision for determination of the year wise vacancies. Sub-rule (1) thereof reads that subject to the provisions of the Rules, 1960 the appointing authority shall determine on 1st April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. Sib-rule (2) thereof reads that the Appointing Authority shall also determine the vacancies of earlier years, year wise which were required to be filled in by promotion, if such vacancies were not determined and filled earlier in the year in which they were required to be filled in. 18. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 25-A of the Rules, 1960 provides for zone of consideration of persons eligible for promotion. 18. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 25-A of the Rules, 1960 provides for zone of consideration of persons eligible for promotion. Sub-rule (11-A) of Rule 25-A of the Rules, 1960 provides that if in any subsequent year, after promulgation of these Rules, vacancies relating to any earlier year are determined under sub-rule (2) of rule relating to determination of vacancies which were retired to be filled by promotion, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the cases of all such persons who would have been eligible in the year to which the vacancies relate irrespective of the year in which the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee is held and such promotions shall be governed by the criteria and procedure for promotion as was applicable in the particular year to which the vacancies relate irrespective of the year in which the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee is held and such promotions shall be governed by the criteria and procedure for promotion as was applicable in the particular year to which the vacancies relate, and the service/experience of an incumbent who has been so promoted, for promotion to higher post for any period during which he has not actually performed the duties of the post of which he would have been promoted, shall be counted. The pay of a person who has been so promoted shall be re-fixed at the pay which he would have derived at the time of his promotion but no arrears of pay shall be allowed to him. 19. Shri R.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner laid much emphasise that the scheme of the aforesaid provisions of the Rules, 1960, it is a vested accrued right of the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers to have the ratio of 60% promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer available with the Departmental as on the date of the notification. By giving retrospective effect to this amendment of the Rules, this vested accrued right has been taken away. 20. In the case of Union of India and Others v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty & Others, (1994) 5 SCC 450 , their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "The legislature and the competent authority under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have the power to make laws with retrospective effect. This power, however, cannot be used to justify the arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional acts of the Executive. This power, however, cannot be used to justify the arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional acts of the Executive. When a person is deprived of an accrued right vested in him under a statute or under the Constitution and he successfully challenges the same in the Court of law, the legislature cannot render the said right and the relief obtained nugatory by enacting retrospective legislation." 21. In the case of Union of India v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty (supra) the rules were amended after decision given in the matter of promotion of the contesting parties therein by the Service Tribunal. 22. In the case of P. Tulsi Das & Others v. Government of A.P. & Others, AIR 2003 SC 43 , the matter for consideration before their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with reference to the validity of Sections 2 and 3(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Untrained Teachers (Regulation of Services and Fixation of Pay Act, 1991. Sections 2 and 3(a) in so far as they purport to take away the rights of untrained graduate teachers appointed as SGBT teachers of particular subjects regarding minimum of pay scale as payable to school Assistant from 10.2.1967 and obligates those who had to repay or restore it back to the State are liable to be struck down as arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory and as such is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. in that case the appointments of the untrained teachers were made in the subjects concerned when there was dearth of the trained teachers. 23. Under the Rules, 1960, in the Schedule attached thereto, Section-II Agriculture Engineering, the post of Assistant Engineer and equivalent posts are to be filled in 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. As regards to the direct recruitment to the post afore stated the essential qualification to be possessed by a candidate is Degree in Agriculture Engineering from the University established by law in India. For promotion to that post, the Junior Engineer and equivalent post Holders in the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Services of the Engineering Section are eligible. Five years experience is required for persons having Degree in Agriculture Engineer on the post of Junior Engineer. As regards to the Junior Engineer having Diploma, 10 years experience on the post is required. For promotion to that post, the Junior Engineer and equivalent post Holders in the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Services of the Engineering Section are eligible. Five years experience is required for persons having Degree in Agriculture Engineer on the post of Junior Engineer. As regards to the Junior Engineer having Diploma, 10 years experience on the post is required. This 50% promotion quota has further been divided to be filled in 60% from the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers and 40% from Degree Holder Junior Engineers prior to 1991. By this amendment in the Rules made by the impugned notification only the ratio of the promotion from 60%-40% was changed to 40%-60% of the Diploma Holder and Degree Holder Junior Engineers. Eligibility for promotion remained the same. The petitioner was not promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer prior to coming into force of 4 this amendment in the Rules. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that prescribing 60% ratio for promotion from Diploma Holder Junior Engineers is an accrued vested right of this category of persons. The learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the category of Diploma Holder Junior Engineer is a dying cadre. 24. In the State of Maharashtra and another v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and others, (1981) 4 SCC 130 , their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the conditions of service while reiterating 5 the settled principle that a right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, but .mere reduction in chances of promotion are not. 25. The amendment made under the impugned notification never had any effect of rendering ineligible for promotion an already eligible Diploma Holder junior engineers. The petitioner was eligible for consideration for promotion prior to this amendment and after this amendment his position remained the same. It is case where the ratio of promotion has been changed. Thus, reduction in the number of posts available for promotion for the category of Diploma Holder Junior Engineer, in these facts if at all could be claimed to have merely affected chances of promotion only and not either right to be considered for promotion or deprived any vested or accrued rights in law. 26. Thus, reduction in the number of posts available for promotion for the category of Diploma Holder Junior Engineer, in these facts if at all could be claimed to have merely affected chances of promotion only and not either right to be considered for promotion or deprived any vested or accrued rights in law. 26. It is not the case where the petitioner was promoted and now by virtue of change in the ratio of promotion for Diplopia Holders Junior Engineers, is likely to be reverted. This change in the ratio of promotion in this categories at the most may result in delaying the promotion of the petitioner and not taking away the promotion. 27. As per his own case the petitioner, after this amendment in the rules, 1960, is likely to be promoted against the vacancy of the year 1997-98. Thus, this ratio prescribed for promotion under the Rules, 1960 cannot be said to be an accrued vested right and thus the Legislature or the Competent Authority under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution is competent to amend it from retrospective effect. The reference here fruitfully may have to the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyama Charan Dash v. State of Orissa, 2003 AIR SCW 1424 . In para No. 9 thereof, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under "9. It is stated by all the learned counsel on either side that the percentage of 25% mentioned in sub- rule (1) stood altered subsequently as 50% from August, 1995. By a Notification dated 11.6.1986, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Rule 7(1) of the Rules, declared about 17 categories of posts to be equivalent in status with that of the Industries Promotion Officers/Industrial Supervisors for the purpose of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7. This Notification has not been challenged at any point of time and even in the course of present proceedings. By the impugned amendment which came into force from 24.5.1991, the words, abbreviation and figures, "in grade pay of Rs. 500-930/- or as revised from time to time" were ordered to be deleted. This Notification has not been challenged at any point of time and even in the course of present proceedings. By the impugned amendment which came into force from 24.5.1991, the words, abbreviation and figures, "in grade pay of Rs. 500-930/- or as revised from time to time" were ordered to be deleted. Even dehors the reasoning of the Tribunal that those words from the inception qualified only the class of Industrial Supervisors, we are of the view that no genuine or serious objection could be either reasonably or lawfully taken to the move to enable all the Industries Promotion Officers also becoming or rendered eligible for promotion to Class-II posts. So far as Industries Promotion Officers among themselves are concerned, the difference in pay scale among them is due to the differences based on the initial feeder category pay and not due to any intrinsic or basis differences of essential qualifications or the nature of duties and obligations. As long as the IPOs, as a class or category, are rendered eligible even from 1986 and that is not challenged, the differences, if any, existing and based on the scales of pay among them, when resolved to be done away with in the undoubted exercise of its power by the State, as a matter of policy, cannot be legitimately challenged by the appellants merely because due to the enlargement of the horizon of consideration resulting therefrom, the chances of consideration for promotion of Industrial Supervisors become diminished. The reasons, which weighed with the State Government in doing so, are found to be genuine, real and substantive and meant to do substantial justice to all categories or grade of posts equated for purposes of rule 7 of the Rules. The fact that in different proceedings where claim for identical scales of pay came to be contested by the Government or rejected by the Tribunal, is no justification to countenance the claim of the appellants in these proceedings inasmuch as the criteria to be applied in dealing with such claims are totally different or at any rate, may be one only among several requirements to be satisfied. Consequently, the challenge on behalf of the appellants has no merit whatsoever and shall stand rejected." 28. Consequently, the challenge on behalf of the appellants has no merit whatsoever and shall stand rejected." 28. From the Court document No. 1 the reason which weighed with the State Government in changing the ratio of promotion between the Diploma Holder and Degree Holder Junior Engineers, we are satisfied, are genuine, real and substantive and meant to do substantial justice to the Degree Holder Junior Engineers. The more qualified Engineers and further despite having more number have less ratio of promotion to the higher post, and naturally they have to wait for years together for promotion compare to a Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, despite less in number, having higher ratio of promotion and get marched over them. It is to be stated at the cost of repetition that the Diploma Holder Junior Engineer is a dying category and by this amendment it is not the case where the petitioner has been rendered ineligible for promotion. At the most it will be delayed. 29. Taking into consideration all the facts of this case we are satisfied that the challenge on behalf of the petitioner to this notification amending the Rules, 1960 has no merits whatsoever and it stands rejected. 30. For all the reasons stated above, this writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******