Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed under Clause 10 of Letters Patent assailing order of learned Single Judge dated 23-3-1997 in M. P. No. 1234 of 1984 dismissing the writ petition. ( 2. ) THE factual matrix of the case necessary for deciding this appeal is that appellant in the year 1954 passed his 2 year Diploma Certificate Course in Electrical Engineering from the Lok Shiksha Vibhag, Rewa. Appellant approached to respondent to consider his case for the promotion as Assistant Engineer treating Diploma Certificate equivalent to 3 year Diploma awarded by Madhya Pradesh Board of Technical Education. The respondent turned down prayer of appellant, which order was challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge found that the matter was enquired at the level of Director, Technical Education and he opined that 2 year Diploma awarded by Lok Shiksha Vibhag, Rewa in 1954 to the appellant is not recognised as equivalent to the 3 year Diploma Course of Madhya Pradesh Board of Technical Education. Apart from this the representation of appellant was rejected on 25-2-1978 and the petition which was filed on 2-5-1984, suffers laches without any explanation of delay and dismissed the petition. ( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for appellant assailed the order on following grounds: (1) That the two year Diploma awarded by the Education Department of erstwhile Vindhya Pradesh has been recognised by the State of Madhya Pradesh and Government of India. (2) That on the basis of aforesaid Diploma appellant entered into the service and was entitled for promotion. (3) That the letter of Director, Technical Education (Annexure R-l) was not properly considered by learned Single Judge. The aforesaid letter contents that Diploma Course run by Government Polytechnic, Nowgong has been recognised for the purpose of recruitment, but the 2 year Diploma awarded by Lok Shiksha Vibhag, Rewa is not recognised as equivalent to the 3 year Diploma now awarded by Madhya Pradesh Board of Technical Education. As the letter provides recognition to the two year Diploma of erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh for the purpose of recruitment, appellant was entitled to he considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer. As the letter provides recognition to the two year Diploma of erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh for the purpose of recruitment, appellant was entitled to he considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer. (4) Learned Single Judge has nol properly considered the judgment of this Court in S. S. Modh v. M. P. Electricity Board and others (M. P. No. 281 of 1980) and Phool Singh Thakur v. Chairman, M. P. E. B. and Ors. (M. P. No. 598 of 1996), in which in similar circumstances those persons were found entitled to be considered for the purpose of promotion as Assistant Engineer, but the appellant has been deprived with the same relief and has been discriminated. Contending aforesaid learned Counsel for appellant submits that appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed, setting aside the order passed by learned Single Judge. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the controversy involved in the case has been set at rest by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3918 of 1984 (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. S. S. Modh and Ors.), in which in similar circumstances the Apex Court found that the employee having 2 year Diploma is not possessing the requisite qualification and the judgment, as relied on by the appellant in S. S. Modh (supra), has been reversed by the Apex Court. Similar is the position herein and this appeal has no merit, which may be dismissed. ( 5. ) BEFORE proceeding further in the case the law laid down by Apex Court in S. S. Modh may be seen. The facts as noted by the Apex Court are as under: "the first respondent was appointed as a Sub-Overseer in the year 1951 in Chambal Hydel Scheme, Gandhisagar, by the erstwhile Slate of Madhya Bharat. In the year 1954, he was promoted as Overseer by the Slate Government. Upon reorganisation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the first respondent was absorbed as Overseer in the year 1956 and as such he was working in Chambal Hydel Scheme. While so, on 4-12-1960, a decision was taken for the transfer of Gandhisagar Power Station to the appellant Board (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board), hereinafter referred as the board with effect from 19-11-1960. It was also decided that the Chambal Project Authorities will maintain the Power Station on behalf of appellant till 31-3-1961. While so, on 4-12-1960, a decision was taken for the transfer of Gandhisagar Power Station to the appellant Board (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board), hereinafter referred as the board with effect from 19-11-1960. It was also decided that the Chambal Project Authorities will maintain the Power Station on behalf of appellant till 31-3-1961. It was also decided that the transmission lines and sub-stations be handed over by the Chambal Project Authorities to the Board by 20-1-1961 and with effect from the said date all employees associated with the execution of the work pertaining to the transmission system and sub-stations will be deemed to have been provisionally transferred to the appellant Board. The services of first respondent were transferred provisionally in the light of the decision taken by the State Government as mentioned above to the Board with effect from 1-4-1961 along with other employees of Chambal Project. At the time of absorption, the respondent No. 1 was holding the post of Overseer (S. G.) in the pay-scale of Rs. 290-370/ -. The post of Chambal Project was equaled with the post of Overseer under the Board carrying pay-scale of Rs. 170-315/". However, as the pay-scale of Overseer (S. G.)_was higher than the pay-scale of the post of Supervisor/overseer under the Board, it was decided to treat the post of Overseer (S. G.) us isolated so that the respondent No. 1 is not put to financial loss. To that effect, an order was passed on 10-6-1963. As the transfer of the services of the employees of the Chambal Hydel Project/scheme to the Board was only provisional, the employees were required to exercise through option in writing within 30 days of the notification dated 22-1-1962. Such employees were given the option either (i) to accept the services under the M. P. Electricity Board in accordance with the Boards Service Regulations and Conditions of service as a whole or (ii) if the terms offered by the Board arc not acceptable, to treat their services terminated after expiry of 30 days from the date of exercising such options. Accordingly, the first respondent opted for the service of the Board and gave a declaration in writing on 21-2-1962 accepting the services under the M. P. Electricity Board in accordance with the Boards Service Regulations and Conditions of Service as a whole. Accordingly, the first respondent opted for the service of the Board and gave a declaration in writing on 21-2-1962 accepting the services under the M. P. Electricity Board in accordance with the Boards Service Regulations and Conditions of Service as a whole. However, after exercising the option as above, first respondent has been claiming that he ought to have been absorbed as Assistant Engineer from 1-4-1961 as according to him all his other colleagues, except himself, were absorbed as Assistant Engineers. This claim of the first respondent was not accepted by the Board right from the beginning on the ground that he did not possess the minimum educational qualification required for being appointed as Assistant Engineer under the Board. Hence the impugned communication dated 18-4-1979 was sent to him. The letter dated 18-4-1979 reads as follows : sub: "representation of Shri S. S. Modh Line Sup. Cr. I. Shri S. S. Modh, L. S. Cr. I has passed two years course for Electrical Engg. Examination 1949 from the Gambhirmal Industrial Institute, Indore. The said two years course is not recognized by the Institute of Engineer (India ). The Secretary, M. P. E. Board of Technical Education, Bhopal has also confirmed that the two years course for Electrical Engg. Examination 1949 from the Gambhirmal Industrial Institute, Indore is not equivalent to the three years Diploma course. In view of above, Shri S. S. Modh is not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. As regards his absorption under the MPEB, it has been examined and seen that no injustice was done in his case. He may please be informed suitably. S/ jt. Secretary (T) M. P. Electricity Board Central Training Institute, M. P. Electricity Board" However, as and when his promotion was due, he was given promotion in a different manner not in the regular promotional avenue so as to safeguard his financial interest. It is under these circumstances the first respondent moved the High Court by filing M. P. No. 281/80. The Board brought to the notice of the High Court the reason for not absorbing the first respondent as Assistant Engineer and it was also brought to the notice of the High Court that all others who were absorbed as Assistant Engineers were cither degree holders or holders of diploma recognized by the Institute of Engineers (India ). The Board brought to the notice of the High Court the reason for not absorbing the first respondent as Assistant Engineer and it was also brought to the notice of the High Court that all others who were absorbed as Assistant Engineers were cither degree holders or holders of diploma recognized by the Institute of Engineers (India ). It was also made clear before the High Court that the promotions given to the first respondent has nothing to do with the representations made by the first respondent claiming to be absorbed as Assistant Engineer. " The Apex Court considering the judgment of High Court in S. S. Modh, held "the High Court on a wrong premise held that the first respondent and others formed a consolidated cadre and were discharging identical duties and, therefore, the Board was not justified in discriminating the first respondent in not absorbing him as Assistant Engineer. Before the High Court, Annexures P-3 and P-5 corresponding to Annexures VII and VIII filed herein were produced to show that Overseers (S. G.) and Junior Engineers formed two different categories. However, the High Court misconstruing the documents erroneously held that they formed one category. The High Court in this connection observed as follows ; "from documents (Annexures P-3 and P-5), it appears that it was intended to create posts of Overseer (S. G.) by reducing equal number of posts of Junior Engineers and as long as this was not done, select grade Overseers were to be counted against the Junior Engineers post. Otherwise, Overseers were having the prospect of being promoted to the post of Junior Engineers. Thus, both Overseers (S. G.) and Junior Engineers formed a consolidated cadre. They were also classified as belonging to Class III Non-Gazetted cadre. These facts arc stated in Paras 5, 6 and 7 of the petition and arc not disputed. " From a reading of the above extracted portion from the High Court judgment, it will be seen that the High Court fell into error in treating Overseers (S. G.) and Junior Engineers as one cadre. We have perused the Annexures VII and VIII and it is seen that Overseers were promoted to the post of Overseers (S. G.) which was on a separate pay-scale. It appears, for want of vacancies in Overseers (S. G.) temporarily the persons selected as Overseers (S. G.) were counted against Junior Engineers post. We have perused the Annexures VII and VIII and it is seen that Overseers were promoted to the post of Overseers (S. G.) which was on a separate pay-scale. It appears, for want of vacancies in Overseers (S. G.) temporarily the persons selected as Overseers (S. G.) were counted against Junior Engineers post. This was wrongly construed by the High Court to mean that Overseers (S. G.) and Junior Engineers formed one cadre. The High Court also has noticed the fact that the first respondent was "hot possessing the minimum qualification for the purpose of Assistant Engineer. That was an admitted position as the High Court itself observed as follows : "it appears that the respondent-Boards stand is that it has prescribed some minimum educational qualifications for the post of Assistant Engineer, which qualification the petitioner does not have. This position is also not disputed by the petitioner who submits that educational qualifications arc relevant for purposes of direct recruitment only and not for absorption or promotion. " The High Court did not rightly accept the submission that the minimum qualification was relevant for direct recruitment only and not for absorption or promotion. The High Court also noticed the fact that the first respondent did not object to his absorption as an Overseer (S. G.) and accepted the same without any protest. It was also brought to the notice of the High Court that all his representations before the authorities were for his promotions. The appellant also raised the question of laches on behalf of the first respondent in approaching the Court, the delay of nearly 19 years. The High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the first respondent and others who were absorbed as Assistant Engineer belonged to same cadre and misconstruing the promotion given in due course by the Board as one recognizing the merit in the case of first respondent, the High Court granted the relief directing the Board to absorb the first respondent as Assistant Engineer right from the date of absorption, namely 1-4-1961 and also to give all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits. We have noticed that the first respondent admittedly was not qualified to be appointed as Assistant Engineer and, therefore, he has no case to claim to be absorbed as Assistant Engineer. The requisite qualification was as given below : "candidate must be a Graduate in Elec. and Mech. Engg. We have noticed that the first respondent admittedly was not qualified to be appointed as Assistant Engineer and, therefore, he has no case to claim to be absorbed as Assistant Engineer. The requisite qualification was as given below : "candidate must be a Graduate in Elec. and Mech. Engg. from a recognised College or University or the Diploma in Electrical Engineering of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore; the Degree or Diploma of any other Institution in Elec. Engg. will be considered provided the same is accepted by the Institution of Engineers (India) as exempting from Sections A and B of the Associate Membership Examination. Candidates who have passed Sections A and B of the A. M. I. E. Examination provided they have basis Engineering qualification gained after matriculation or a three or four years Collegiate Engineering Course will be considered. " The first respondent was not possessing the requisite qualification. The High Court also proceeded on a wrong assumption that certain allegations made by the first respondent in the writ petition had not been controverted by the appellant herein. Factually, all the allegations were controverted in the return filed on behalf of the appellant before the High Court. We have perused the affidavit and the return filed by the first respondent and the appellant respectively before the High Court and we arc satisfied that the High Court was not right in observing that allegations in Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the writ petition were not controverted by the Board. We have also noticed that the employees of the project were given option to accept the service of the Board without any objection and to serve in accordance with the Boards Service Regulations and Conditions of Service as a whole. The first respondent has submitted written declaration to that effect. When the service regulations provide that candidates holding engineering degree or equivalent thereto to be appointed as Assistant Engineer, the first respondent without possessing such qualification can not put forward a claim to be absorbed as Assistant Engineer. His claim lacks foundation. The High Court was aware of the fact that the first respondent did not possess the minimum qualification for being absorbed as Assistant Engineer. Nevertheless the High Court has granted relief by observing as follows : "the only reason for treating the petitioner separate from others in his category, is his lesser educational qualifications. His claim lacks foundation. The High Court was aware of the fact that the first respondent did not possess the minimum qualification for being absorbed as Assistant Engineer. Nevertheless the High Court has granted relief by observing as follows : "the only reason for treating the petitioner separate from others in his category, is his lesser educational qualifications. This, however, is not permitted. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the petitioner has been treated illegally by the respondent-Board by not absorbing him as an Assistant Engineer like all others in his category. The petitioner is, thus, clearly entitled to the benefits from the same date when all others in his category have been given. " "the above observation can not be sustained in the face of the fact that the first respondent has no qualification required for being appointed as Assistant Engineer. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the judgment of the High Court can not be sustained and accordingly the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to cost. " ( 6. ) THE facts of present case arc identical to the case of S. S. Modh. Appellant passed 2 year Diploma Course from Polytechnic College, Nowgong of erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh in the year 1954 and S. S. Modh also passed 2 year Diploma course in Electrical Engineering in 1949 from Gambhirmal Industrial Institute, Indore. Both the courses were not recognised by the Institute of Engineering as equivalent to degree course or 3 year Diploma course. As the appellant is not having requisite qualification for absorbing as Assistant Engineer, in these circumstances, the respondent has rightly declined the case of appellant. The learned Single Judge after considering the facts of the case, particularly letter (Annexure R-l) issued by Director of Technical Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal dated 2-8-1977 has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for the post. The aforesaid judgment of learned Single Judge is squarely covered by the judgment of Apex Court, in these circumstances, contentions raised by the appellant lacks merit. We do not find any merit in this appeal, warranting interference in the order passed by learned Single Judge, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.