JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that respondents be directed to consider his case for promotion on the post of Tracer w.e.f. 1983 immediately after he acquired qualification of Rashtra Bhasha Parichay Pariksha which is equivalent to Secondary examination and further consider his case for promotion on the post of Junior Draftsman from the date his juniors have been so promoted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner became entitled for promotion on the post of Tracer immediately when he acquired qualification of Prathama in the year 1983 which is equivalent to Secondary. He acquired the said qualification after seeking permission from the respondents and entry to this effect was duly made in his service book. Government of Rajasthan vide its circular dated 13/5/1974 recognised the Rashtra Basha Parichay Pariksha as equivalent to Secondary upto Hindi level. It was contended that schedule appended to the Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building & Roads) Service Rules, 1973 (for short, "Rules of 1973") nowhere precludes such qualification to be not treated as equivalent to Secondary examination and therefore the petitioner has to be treated as eligible all along for consideration of his case for promotion on the post of Tracer and thereafter on the post of Junior Draftsman. Case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion merely because of the pendency of his earlier writ petition being DBCWP No.1252/1983 and at that relevant time, petitioner had not acquired the qualification of Secondary which is equivalent to Rashtra Basha Parichay Pariksha. 3. Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that the qualification of Rashtra Basha Parichay Pariksha was very much acquired by the petitioner when the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench vide jdugment dated 21/9/1993. Division Bench considered the import of the word "Secondary Examination passed". Division Bench found the petitioner eligible. It was contended that even petitioner has acquired the aforesaid qualification with Drawing as provided in relevant entry at Sr.No.6 in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1973. Rule was amended by the Department of Personnel for the first time vide notification dated 6/5/1995 so as to make the candidate having the equivalent qualification to be eligible for promotion on the higher post of Tracer or Draftsman. Rule was amended by the Department of Personnel for the first time vide notification dated 6/5/1995 so as to make the candidate having the equivalent qualification to be eligible for promotion on the higher post of Tracer or Draftsman. Subsequently, vacancies arose for the year 1996-97 in which case of the petitioner along with other were considered but the petitioner was not recommended for promotion because his senior persons were already available. As regards Hari Shankar, it was clarified that he was senior to the petitioner as Foreman. However, petitioner was finally selected on regular basis against the vacancies of year 1997-98. 4. On consideration of the arguments aforesaid and specially in view of the clarification given by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is evident that petitioner has since been considered as eligible for promotion consequent upon the amendment in Schedule to the Rules of 1973 on the strength of equivalent qualification against the vacancies of year 1997-98. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that he should be given promotion even for the earlier years. Accepting this argument would result in applying the amendment in the rules from earlier date. In other words, it would amount to giving the same retrospective effect. Such an argument cannot be accepted. Contention of the petitioner however is that his case for further promotion on the post of Junior Draftsman has not been considered by the respondents because he has been promoted on the post of Tracer. 5. Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and has submitted that though there is an amendment in the relevant Column No.6 against the post of Tracer but so far, no corresponding amendment has been made in such Column No.6 against the post of Draftsman. 6. It would be evident from the stand taken by the respondents that source of recruitment to the post of Junior Draftsman is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from the post of Tracer. 6. It would be evident from the stand taken by the respondents that source of recruitment to the post of Junior Draftsman is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from the post of Tracer. It is difficult to appreciate that when the persons having equivalent qualification of Secondary are being considered for promotion on the post of Tracer, then how the Tracers can be deprived of from consideration of promotion on the post of Junior Draftsman contrary to Entry No.6 wherein qualification for promotion on the next higher post for Tracers and Draftsmen are exactly the same i.e. Secondary examination with Drawing subject as the prescribed qualification. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to examine the advisability of amendment in Column No.6 in the entry relating to qualification against the post of Architect/Draftsman upon petitioner making representation in that behalf so as to bring the same in conformity with Column No.6 against the post of Tracer and decide that question within a period of three months from the date petitioner submits a representation to this effect along with copy of this judgment.Writ Petition Allowed. *******