JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Mohan Swaroop Saraswat praying therein that words "Gr.I" mentioned in Note No.2 below Item No.1 in Schedule appended to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority etc.) Regulations, 1969 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Regulations'), be declared ultra-vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and be accordingly struck down; further respondents be directed to consider his candidature against ⅓rd vacancies of direct recruitment quota meant for in service Junior Engineers as provided in Note 2 (Supra), and appoint him on the basis of his merit amongst inservice Junior Engineers, with effect from 11.11.1994, when Junior Engineers below to him in the such merit, were appointed. 2. Petitioner was serving with erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board, which is now divided into five different electricity companies. He is a diploma holder in Electrical Engineering. He was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer Gr.II on 27.07.1983 after a regular selection as per the Regulations. After completion of 9 years of service, he was granted selection grade vide order dated 05.11.1992. Posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Board were to be filled in 35% by direct recruitment and 65% by promotion at the relevant time when the advertisement in question was issued by the respondents for direct recruitment, on 07.04.1993. 3. Clause 11 of the Regulations provides for method and the manner, which is relevant for the purpose and according thereto a candidate for direct recruitment to the service as Assistant Engineer must hold a degree in engineering (Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Tele-communication or Electronics, as the case may be) of a University established by Law in India or a Degree or Diploma of Foreign University or Institution declared by the Board/Government to be equivalent to a Degree in Engineering (Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Tele-Communication or Electronics as the case may be) of a University established by Law in India. 4. An advertisement was issued on 07.04.1993 by the respondents inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). 5. It may be significant to notice here that the Note No.2 below Item No.1 in the Schedule appended to the Regulations was inserted by resolution of the Board in its 338th meeting held on 10.10.1984. 4. An advertisement was issued on 07.04.1993 by the respondents inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). 5. It may be significant to notice here that the Note No.2 below Item No.1 in the Schedule appended to the Regulations was inserted by resolution of the Board in its 338th meeting held on 10.10.1984. The aforesaid note provided that ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota shall be filled from amongst the existing JENs Gr.I who have served the Board at least for 2 Yrs., on the 1st of April of that year by holding a separate competitive examination. Due weightage shall be given to service experience and performance of such JENs for selection in such examination. 6. An advertisement was issued by the respondent Board inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 07.04.1993. ⅓rd of that was meant for in service Junior Engineers. The Diploma Holder Junior Engineers submitted representation to the respondent Board to allow them to appear in the examination. An internal Circular was issued by the Respondent Board on 30.03.1993, which is produced on the record by the respondents along-with reply to the writ petition as Annexure R/1, which says that, on consideration of representations of Junior Engineers, the respondent decided to allow Junior Engineer-I (Mechanical) as also Junior Engineer-II (Mechanical) with 7 years service in the Board to appear in the said examination. 7. The petitioner also submitted his application for appointment for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) against ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota because he was, apart from holding diploma qualification, had also 7 years experience. A written examination was conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on behalf of the respondent Board, in which the petitioner was declared successful. He was thereafter by letter dated 06.04.1994 called upon to appear for interview and personality test, which he successfully faced on 28.04.1994. Petitioner has also placed on record the select list containing names of 82 candidates from open market and 40 in service candidates, in which his name did not appear, which was notified sometime in 1986. He was thereafter by letter dated 06.04.1994 called upon to appear for interview and personality test, which he successfully faced on 28.04.1994. Petitioner has also placed on record the select list containing names of 82 candidates from open market and 40 in service candidates, in which his name did not appear, which was notified sometime in 1986. He immediately thereupon submitted a representation to the respondents pointing out that some degree holder Junior Engineers, who secured less marks than him in the common competitive examination on the basis of which common merit list was prepared, have been selected but he has not been considered against ⅓rd quota meant for in service candidates. The petitioner thereafter submitted number of other representations. Finally he received reply of Joint Secretary of the Board dated 29.09.1994, informing him that since only degree-holders would be considered against ⅓rd vacancies meant for direct recruitment, he being a diploma-holder could not be considered against that quota. 8. The petitioner then submitted representation to the Chairman of the Board, which was forwarded by Superintending Engineer on 14.12.1995, followed by two more such representations. The respondents, however, did not accept his plea and, made appointment of other selected candidates by order dated 11.11.1994. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner approached this Court by filing present writ petition. 9. Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that respondents by restricting ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota only to be filled in from amongst Junior Engineer Gr.I and not allowing petitioner, who is Junior Engineer Gr.II, have subjected him to hostile discrimination inasmuch as diploma-holder junior engineer with 7 years experience is considered at par with degree-holder junior engineers with two years experience, and considered eligible in so far as promotion is concerned. There can be therefore no reason not to consider a diploma holder junior engineer with 7 years experience for appointment against ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota, when he is considered eligible both for promotion and direct recruitment against remaining ⅔rd vacancies. There can be therefore no reason not to consider a diploma holder junior engineer with 7 years experience for appointment against ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota, when he is considered eligible both for promotion and direct recruitment against remaining ⅔rd vacancies. When several similarly situated persons submitted a representation, the Secretary of the Board, passed a Circular dated 30.03.1993 and reading of that Circular of the Board clearly shows that their representation was accepted and it was decided by the Board to allow Junior Engineer Gr.I (Mechanical) as also Junior Engineer Gr.2 with 7 years service in the Board, to appear in the examination against direct recruitment quota of Assistant Engineers, which was held pursuant to advertisement issued on 07.04.1993. There was, therefore, no reason to deviate from that practice in the subsequently issued advertisement. 10. Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that respondents, by their action, have treated junior engineers, who were otherwise similarly situated, in the matter of promotion, differently and thus equals have been treated unequally. Learned counsel further submitted that diploma holder junior engineers and degree holder junior engineers have acquired eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer, both by way of promotion as well as direct recruitment by virtue of clause 11 and 19 of the Regulations. According to the Rules, in order to secure promotion, a degree-holder junior engineer must possess two years experience and that a diploma holder junior engineer must possess 7 years experience. They are both placed on same pedestal and fall in the same category. Clause 11 of the Regulations independently confers eligibility on degree holder and diploma-holder junior engineers both. However, the respondents by restricting ⅓rd quota out of the direct recruitment only to degree-holder junior engineers, have treated in service degree-holder junior engineers more favourably than in service diploma-holder junior engineers. In the past, they have done away with such discrimination by issuing Circular dated 30.03.1993 with respect of Notification issued in January, 1993. However, with regard to advertisement in question, the discrimination was again made. 11. Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel submitted that, in practice, however, degree-holder junior engineers with two years experience and diploma junior engineers with 7 years experience have been treated at par. However, with regard to advertisement in question, the discrimination was again made. 11. Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel submitted that, in practice, however, degree-holder junior engineers with two years experience and diploma junior engineers with 7 years experience have been treated at par. The learned counsel in this connection referred to the minutes of 21st meeting of Coordination Committee held on 01.06.2001, and, in specific, referred to Agenda and Item No.5 thereof wherein it was noted that as per existing provision, the post of Assistant Engineer was being filled 50% by direct recruitment (⅔rd from amongst open market candidates and ⅓rd from amongst Junior Engineer Gr.I/Junior Engineer Gr.II working in the Board), and 50% by promotion in the ratio of 3:2 (30% from amongst diploma holders JENs and 20% from amongst degree holders JENs respectively). In that meeting, it was resolved that existing provision for filling up the post of AEN may be amended in so far as promotion part is concerned, and for direct recruitment, existing provision be retained as such. 50% is still retained for direct recruitment out of which ⅔rd from amongst open market candidates and ⅓rd from amongst Junior Engineer Gr.I/Junior Engineer Gr.II working in the Board). Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel submitted that in the selection held pursuant to advertisement dated 07.04.1993, in all 64 candidates were declared successful in which 63 candidates were from general category and 1 was from SC, and against which 40 persons were appointed, out of which 39 were from General Category and one from SC vide order dated 07.07.1994. Learned counsel submitted that in the common merit list of in service candidates that was prepared by respondents, name of petitioner appeared at Serial No.78 with 556 marks, whereas out of 38 candidates selected and appointed under that quota, only 18 candidates secured higher marks than the petitioner and 20 were having lesser marks than him and last such candidate appointed at Serial No.38 Shri Ajay Kumar Malhotra merely secured 494 marks. The petitioner's name should have appeared immediately after Shri Vinay Baj, whose name appeared at No.18. 12. The petitioner's name should have appeared immediately after Shri Vinay Baj, whose name appeared at No.18. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that for all the aforesaid reasons, in service Junior Engineers, who otherwise fall in one class, cannot be bifurcated further because in so far as the respondent-employer is concerned, it has to treat both of them at par as per the mandate of clause 11 and 19 of the Regulations. An exception carved out by inserting wordings 'Gr.I' immediately after the word "Junior Engineer', the respondents have made unreasonable classification resulting into hostile discrimination against diploma holder Junior Engineers, by leaving them outside the purview of ⅓rd quota earmarked for in service candidates. There is no reasonable nexus or object sought to be achieved for this differential treatment meted out to the petitioner. The learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in In re the Special Court Bill, 1978 AIR 1979 SC 478 , AIR India v. Nergesh Meerza & Others (1981) 4 SCC 335 and Union of India and Another v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 . 13. Per contra, Shri Saugath Roy, learned counsel for respondent, opposed the writ petition and submitted that since petitioner was a diploma-holder Junior Engineers Gr.II, by virtue of clause 11 of the Regulations, he could apply as an open market candidate but he could not be treated as an in service candidate falling within the purview of Note 2 below Item No.1 in the Schedule appended to the Regulations. Learned counsel submitted that no person lower than petitioner in merit of open market candidates has been appointed as Assistant Engineer. Only 82 persons were appointed out of which 70 were from general category, 6 from SC and 6 from ST quota. Last candidate appointed from general category secured 588 marks out of 1135, which comes to 51.80%, whereas petitioner secured only 556 out of 1135 marks, thus his percentage comes to only 48.98, and his merit in the general category was at Serial No.96. Special facility extended to degree-holder Junior Engineers by virtue of giving them opportunity to compete against ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota has an intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus sought to be achieved, because even then two years experience is required with due weightage is to be given to the service experience performance. Special facility extended to degree-holder Junior Engineers by virtue of giving them opportunity to compete against ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota has an intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus sought to be achieved, because even then two years experience is required with due weightage is to be given to the service experience performance. The classification of Assistant Engineer on the basis of degree and diploma qualification does not violate the right to equality or Articles 14 of the Constitution of India as it is a reasonable classification. The learned counsel, in support of his argument, relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme in the State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Others AIR 1974 SC 1 . 14. Shri Saugath Roy, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is estopped from challenging validity of Note No.2 below Item No.1 in the Schedule, which has restricted ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota to be filled in amongst existing Junior Engineer Gr.I, because having full knowledge of the said provision, he participated in the process of selection. Having failed to secure appointment against direct recruitment quota of open market candidates, he cannot now be permitted to assail validity of aforesaid provision. The learned counsel, in support of this argument, relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma & Others (1997) 4 SCC 426 . It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 15. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 16. For the ready reference, Clause 11 (1), 18, 19 of the Regulations and Note 2 below Entry No.1 of the Schedule appended to said Regulations, which are relevant for deciding controversy involved in the present matter, are reproduced here as follows:- "11. (1) A candidate for direct recruitment to the service as Assistant Engineer: Qualification: (a)(i) Must hold a degree in Engineering (Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Tele-Communication or Electronics as the case may be) of a University established by Law in India or a Degree or Diploma of Foreign University or Institution declared by the Board/Govt. To be equivalent to a Degree in Engineering (Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Tele-Communication or Electronics as the case may be) of a University established by Law in India. To be equivalent to a Degree in Engineering (Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Tele-Communication or Electronics as the case may be) of a University established by Law in India. Provided that such diploma holders working in the various branches of Engineering in the Board who have rendered 7 years continuous service as Junior Engineers Gr.II will be also eligible and allowed to appear on making application in prescribed form and manner along with degree holders in the examination to be conducted for appointment of Asstt. Engineers against the direct recruitment quota. .... 18. Ratio and basis of Promotion: Appointments (permanent or in a temporary/officiating capacity) by promotion to the posts of Asstt. Engineers shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. 19. Qualifying Service for promotion: No Junior Engineer Gr.I/Junior Engineer Gr.II shall be eligible for promotion to the Service unless he possesses the qualifications and experience prescribed in column 6 of Schedule-I. S.No. Name of appointment Scale of Pay (w.e.f. 1.9.81) Method of recruitment Post from which selection is to be made Qualifications and experience for promotion Qualifications and experience for direct recruitment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Junior Posts: 1. Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) including Asstt. Controller of Stores 1000-30-1300-40- 1500-50-1800-60- 1860 1. 25% by direct recruitment 2. 75% by promotion on the basis of seniority Junior Engineer Gr. I/II (Electrical) cum merit. Note No.1: The persons will be promoted from Degree Holders and Diploma Holders in the ratio of 3:1 Note No.1: ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota shall be filled from amongst the existing JENs Gr.I who have served the Board at least for 2 Yrs. on the 1st of April of that year by holding a separate competitive Exam. Due weightage shall be given to service experience and performance of such JENs for selection in such examination. B.E.(Elec) or A.M.I.E. (Elec) or qualification declared equivalent by Govt. with 2 years service as Junior Engineer (Elec.) or Diploma holder from a recognised Institution with 2 Yrs. Requisite experience as JEN (Gr.I/II (Electrical) Note: The specified qualification of the B.E. Degree A.M.I.E. And the Diploma in Engineering as also the requirement of experience in a particular service will not apply in case of those who are assigned to the service by the Board on the basis of their options given by 31st July 1975. Board's decision ⅓rd period of total regular service subject to maximum of two yrs. Board's decision ⅓rd period of total regular service subject to maximum of two yrs. Put in by a person as JEN Gr.I/II in the Board before passing the AMIE Exam. be counted towards the minimum eligibility period of 2 years. For appointment as EEN. This will however not give such employee any claim for seniority. In the list of Degree Holders he will be placed Junior to all the degree holders recruited before the date of his passing the AMIE Examination and will be senior to those who are recruited after the date of his passing the examination. 17. Perusal of Clause 11 of the Regulations shows that this Regulation confers eligibility on both degree-holder and diploma-holder junior engineers; while in the case of degree-holders, who may or may not be serving the respondents, no insistence has been made for possessing experience of service; if an in-service diploma-holder Junior Engineer has to apply for appointment by virtue of proviso to Regulation 11, he could do so in case he possesses experience of 7 years continuous service as Junior Engineer Gr.I. Clause 19 of the Regulations, however, provides that a Junior Engineer Gr.I/Junior Engineer Gr.II shall be eligible for promotion to the service unless he possesses qualification and experience prescribed in column 6 of Schedule-I, which, inter-alia, requires degree qualification with experience of 2 years service in the case of Junior Engineer Gr.I and diploma qualification with experience of 7 years service in the case of Junior Engineer Gr.II. The respondents have thus treated the degree holders and diploma-holders at par both for the purpose of direct recruitment in so far as open market category is concerned, and for the purpose of promotion subject of-course to requisite additional experience of 5 years in the case of diploma-holders Junior Engineers, over and above mere 2 years' experience required for degree-holder junior engineers. The respondents have placed on record Circular dated 30.03.1993, which was issued in the context of advertisement issued by them sometime in January, 1993, where only degree-holder Junior Engineers with 2 years experience and diploma-holder Junior Engineers with 7 years experience of service in the Board, were held eligible to apply for direct recruitment. The respondents have placed on record Circular dated 30.03.1993, which was issued in the context of advertisement issued by them sometime in January, 1993, where only degree-holder Junior Engineers with 2 years experience and diploma-holder Junior Engineers with 7 years experience of service in the Board, were held eligible to apply for direct recruitment. Some of the junior engineers with mechanical degree represented to the Board; their representation was considered and the Board allowed the Junior Engineer Gr.I as also Junior Engineer Gr.II with 7 years experience of service with the Board, to appear in the said examination. Subsequently also, as would be evident from the minutes of 21st meeting of Coordination Committee of all newly formed electricity companies held on 01.06.2001, at Item No.5 of which it was decided as follows:- "5. Revision in criteria for filling up the post of AENs: It was informed to the committee that legal difficulties were being faced in promotion of degree and diploma holder JENs to the post of AEN. As per the existing provisions, the post of Asstt. Engineer was being filled as follows: (i) 50% by Direct Recruitment (⅔rd from amongst open market candidates and ⅓rd from amongst JEN-I/JEN-II working in the RSEB), and (ii) 50% by promotion in the ratio of 3:2 (30% from amongst diploma holders JENs and 20% from amongst degree holders JENs respectively). The problem had arisen in the promotions of diploma and degree holders since the existing ratio of promotion of diploma and degree holder JENs was not commensurate with the actual strength of the diploma and degree holders, causing dissatisfaction among the degree holder JENs. The matter was, therefore, placed before the Committee to decide upon the criteria for the promotions to instill the spirit of equality among the degree and diploma holder JENs. The matter was discussed in detail and it was unanimously decided that the existing provisions for filling up the post of AENs may be amended as follows:- (A) Direct Recruitment No change and Existing provision to be continued i.e. 50% by direct recruitment (2/3 from open market and 1/3 from Junior Engineer Gr.I Junior Engineer Gr.II working in Company. The matter was discussed in detail and it was unanimously decided that the existing provisions for filling up the post of AENs may be amended as follows:- (A) Direct Recruitment No change and Existing provision to be continued i.e. 50% by direct recruitment (2/3 from open market and 1/3 from Junior Engineer Gr.I Junior Engineer Gr.II working in Company. (B) Promotion (50% quota) Existing provisions to be replaced by the following provision:- 50% by promotion as follows:- "The promotion ratio of the diploma & degree holders shall be in proportionate to the actual working strength of the degree and diploma holders working as on 19.01.2001. The number so arrived at if being a fraction shall be rounded off to nearest one. The strength of Sub-Engineers working as on above date shall also be included in counting the above strength to arrive at the promotion ratio." All the respective five companies may obtain the necessary approval of their respective Board of Directors to effect the above amendments." 18. The respondents have themselves been thus treating Junior Engineer Gr.I having 2 years' experience and Junior Engineer Gr.II having 7 years' experience at par. Of course degree-holder junior engineers and diploma holder Junior engineers broadly fall within two different categories and their classification on the basis of their qualification has to be held reasonable. However, having treated them equal in the matter of promotion and having granted them both eligibility for applying against direct recruitment quota, could the respondents treat them differently by carving out a special provision for in-service Junior Engineer Gr.I, is the question which is to be answered in the present matter.19. In so far as prescription of separate quota for promotion on the basis of degree and diploma qualification is concerned, there can be no quarrel with the proposition that this was permissible by law as that would be reasonable classification based on their qualification. Classification on the basis of eligibility qualification has been held to be a valid criteria by the Supreme Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Others (Supra), and series of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court thereafter.20. What however appeals to the court is that when the degree-holder junior engineers join the service of respondent Board as also diploma holders did, both would fall in the category of in-service candidates. What however appeals to the court is that when the degree-holder junior engineers join the service of respondent Board as also diploma holders did, both would fall in the category of in-service candidates. When the respondents have given eligibility to both in-service degree and diploma holder category to compete against direct recruitment by virtue of Clause 11 of the Regulations by insisting upon additional experience of 7 years in so far as the diploma-holder junior engineers are concerned, and also conferred upon them the right to consideration for promotion, how could they place degree holder junior engineers in a more advantageous position by exclusively setting apart ⅓rd out of total posts meant for direct recruitment, who like the former, were also in-service candidates for them, is difficult to understand. For the respondents, both, degree and diploma holder, were their employees falling under in-service category and, if at all there was any deficiency or lack in qualification possessed by diploma holder, that was made up by insisting on more amount of experience i.e. 7 years experience. Once that hurdle was crossed by petitioner diploma-holder, he could not be, for the purpose of consideration of his name, denied the right to compete side by side degree holder junior engineers as far as ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota is concerned. In other words, the respondents, by devising special mode of recruitment for degree-holder junior engineers, have evolved, by virtue of Note No.2 below Item No.1, a special mode for them, who were in-service candidates, could not discriminate against diploma holder junior engineers, who like them were also in-service candidates and for them both were equal.21. Moreover, when in the Note 2 (supra) they require that due weight age shall be given to in-service engineers for selection in such examination, there was no basis on which they could treat diploma-holder junior engineers differently than degree-holder junior engineers. The respondents, by their conduct not only earlier than selection in question but also thereafter, have been treating the Junior Engineer Gr.I and Junior Engineer Gr.II at par both for the purpose of promotion as well as direct recruitment, as is evident from Circular dated 30.03.1993 and also it is manifest from the minutes of the meeting of the Coordination Committee of all five electricity companies held on 01.06.2001.22. Article 14 of the Constitution does not forbid reasonable classification. Article 14 of the Constitution does not forbid reasonable classification. It seeks to prohibit a person or class of persons from being singled out from other similarly situated persons for being subjected to hostile discrimination. The only exception being that of reasonable classification based on relevant consideration. In order to qualify the test of judicial scrutiny, classification has to be reasonable classification and to examine that the court has to find out whether the provision under review postulates a rational basis for such classification or whether the classification envisaged by it, is arbitrary and artificial. In essence, what is to be seen is whether the classification qualifies judicially propounded twin tests, (i) that the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those who are left out and (ii) that such intelligible differentia has a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the provision under review. For a legislation to be valid, the above referred to twin tests have to be satisfied simultaneously.23. Here in the instant case both degree holder junior engineers and diploma-holder junior engineers constitute one class being in-service candidates in so far as giving them opportunity to compete against the post meant for direct recruitment is concerned. The respondents by restricting ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota to only Junior Engineer Gr.I have indeed sought to put them in a more advantageous position than the diploma holder junior engineers. The discussion made above, would show that such classification is neither founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those who are included in this group, than those others who are left out because both of them as far as the respondents are concerned, are in-service candidates competing against vacancies of direct recruitment. Difference of experience in the matter of promotion on the basis of qualification may have been followed for the purpose of considering their case for promotion. Difference of experience in the matter of promotion on the basis of qualification may have been followed for the purpose of considering their case for promotion. But once the experience of 7 years is prescribed as eligibility requisitioned for for diploma-holder, they were to be treated at par with degree holder, which is what has been provided under proviso to Clause 11(1) of the Regulations, By further dividing the quota of direct recruitment reserving ⅓rd out of them only for degree-holders, the respondents have sought to diminish the chances of selection for diploma-holders even though both are in the category of junior engineers; when both diploma and degree holder falls in one and same category of in-service candidates and when for both of them provision has been made to allow them to appear in competitive examination for appointment against post of direct recruitment, there can be no rational or reasonable object sought to be achieved by restricting the competition for appointment against ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota, only to Junior Engineer Gr.I, who have served with the Board for two years; such prescription of 2 years having been borrowed from eligibility requirement of promotion contained in column 6 of Entry 1 of junior post, the experience of 7 years prescribed for eligibility of promotion to diploma-holder Junior Engineer in the same column having been en-grafted in proviso to clause 11(1), the diploma-holder Junior Engineers could not be deprived of the right to compete against ⅓rd vacancies under direct recruitment quota.24. Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibits hostile discrimination but at the same time permits reasonable classification, but a provision which seeks to treat equal differently without any reasonable basis invites its frown. The class and category of in-service candidates being essentially same, in purport and spirit, there was absolutely no justification for the respondents to give a different and discriminatory treatment to the petitioner, who is diploma holder junior engineer. The subject provision is not only unreasonable but is absolutely arbitrary and; in so far as the wordings "Gr.I" given in Note 2 immediately after words "Junior Engineer" is concerned, it is liable to be struck down as being ultra-vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.25. The subject provision is not only unreasonable but is absolutely arbitrary and; in so far as the wordings "Gr.I" given in Note 2 immediately after words "Junior Engineer" is concerned, it is liable to be struck down as being ultra-vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.25. Argument that the petitioner would be estopped from questioning the correctness of the aforesaid provision because he, in spite of existing Note No.2 below Item No.1 of the Schedule appended to the Regulations, participated in selection process, cannot be accepted; firstly, for the reason that the respondents themselves have issued Circular dated 30.03.1993 and subsequently also, as evident from the Minutes of 21st meeting of Coordination Committee held on 01.06.2001, have been treating both junior engineers i.e. Gr.I and Gr.II eligible for competing against the post of direct recruitment; secondly, for the reasons that this matter has remained pending before this Court for last more than 14 years, and cannot be thrown on this technicality at this belated stage.26. The respondents have placed for perusal of the Court record relating to selection, in question, which indicates that in the merit list of departmental candidates, 38 candidates were selected, last candidate selected at Serial No.38 secured 554 marks whereas petitioner secured 556 marks. If name of petitioner is interpolated in the merit list of departmental candidates, he would appear immediately after Serial No.18, who secured 558 marks. In other words, candidates starting from Serial No.19 up-to 38 thus, in all 20 departmental candidates, were such who had secured lesser marks than petitioner. What is striking to note here is that they were like petitioner also the departmental candidates and were subjected to written as well as personality test in the same process of selection which was conducted by the RPSC.27. More over, since petitioner has appeared in same selection process along-with 38 departmental candidates, who were finally selected and out of whom 20 secured lesser marks than petitioner, he cannot be non-suited only because of the objection which respondents are now seeking to raise.28. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. The words "Gr.I" appearing after the words "Junior Engineer" in Note No.2 below Item No.1 of Junior Posts in the Schedule appended to the Regulations, is declared ultra-vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is therefore struck down.29. Consequently, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 22.07.1994 when such appointment was granted to other candidates, with all consequential benefits.30. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents.Petition allowed. *******