1. The issues involved in all these writ petitions are identical, so they are take up together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners and private respondents were appointed by way of promotion on the post of Senior Compilers in the year 1991 vide Order No. DF-ADM/7B of 1991 dated 11th November, 1991. The official respondents appointed private respondents by way of promotion on the post of Examiners vide Orders dated 13th October, 1997 and 17th October/1997, which are impugned in these petitions. 3. The petitioners feeling aggrieved of the promotion of private respondents, have challenged these orders in these writ petitions, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioners were senior to private respondents as they were appointed by way of promotion on the post of Senior Compilers and ranked ahead of private respon­dents in the promotion order; the private respondents were lacking requisite experience of six years as provided by statutory rules so could have not been appointed by way of promotion on the post of Examiners. 4. On notice issued in this case, respondents have filed objections/reply affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit is also filed in Ghulam Nabi's Case. In the objections/reply affidavit, the official respondents have admitted that the private respondents were appointed by way of promotion on the post of senior Compilers on 11th November, 1991. The issue of lack of experience of six years by private respondents is neither dealt with by the official respondents nor by the private respondents in the objections/reply affidavit. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee was not constituted in accordance with rules called Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Recruitment Rules,1992 (for short "Rules of 1992). Learned counsel referred to Rule-14 of the Rules of 1992 and submitted that the composition of the Departmental Promotion Committee which in the present case is Divisional Departmental Promotion Committee has to be one which is headed by the divisional head of the Department/Office and two district level officers of the department to be nominated by department. Learned counsel further submitted that the services of the petitioners and private respondents are governed by Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Accounts (Unfunded Debt) Service Recruitment Rules of 1980 (for short "Rules of 1980"). Learned counsel further submitted that the services of the petitioners and private respondents are governed by Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Accounts (Unfunded Debt) Service Recruitment Rules of 1980 (for short "Rules of 1980"). In terms of schedule-II appended to the said rules, the post of Examiner is to be filled up by promotion from class-II from persons having six years experience. Relevant part of the schedule-II is reproduced as under:- Class Cate­gory Desig­nation Grade No of posts Mini­mum quali­fication Method of recruitment I Exam­iner 450-700 14 By promotion from Class-II from persons having 6 years experience II Sr. Compiler 280-520 24 By promotion from Class III Category 'A" from persons having 4 years experience in that category. III A Comp­ilers 220-430 44 B.Sc./B.Com./B.A. i) 25% by direct recruitment ii) 75% by promotion from category 'B" from persons having 2 years experience. B Asst. Comp­ilers 200-320 96 Matri­culation or Equi­valent exami­nation By direct recruitment. Learned counsel further submitted that without notifying the final seniority list, these promotions were made. Learned counsel finally submitted that for the above stated reasons the appointment of private respondents by way of promotions on the post of Examiners is illegal. 7. Learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that the Departmen­tal Promotion Committee, which considered the case of the petitioners and private respondents were comprised of head of the department, one Deputy Director from Jammu and another from Kashmir. Learned counsel while referring to schedule-II appended to Rules of 1980 submitted that the requirements of having six years experience would not mean that the officer shall have six years experience as Senior Compiler, but in total he must have six years experience. Learned counsel submitted that this submission is made in view of the language used by the rule maker in respect of method of recruitment to the post of Senior Compiler, which provides that a Compiler from Class-III Category-A can be appointed by way of promotion on the post of Senior Compiler, from amongst persons having four years experience in that category. Learned counsel submitted that there was no requirement of having six years experience on the post of Senior Compiler for considering a person for being appointed by way of promotion on the post of Examiner. Learned counsel submitted that there was no requirement of having six years experience on the post of Senior Compiler for considering a person for being appointed by way of promotion on the post of Examiner. Learned counsel further submitted that promotions were made in terms of Rule 25 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 (for short "Rules of 1956") read with Rules of 1980. 8. Admittedly the services of the petitioners and private respondents are governed by Rules of 1980. Rule -5 of the Rules of 1980 provide that no person shall be eligible for appointment or promotion to any post in any class, category or grade in the service unless he posses the qualifications as laid down in the schedule-II and fulfils other requirements of recruitment as provided in the rules and orders for the time being in force. Rule-5 of Rules of 1980 is reproduced as under:- "Qualification and method of recruitment.-(1) No person shall be eligible for appointment or promotion to any post in any class, category or grade in the service unless he possess the qualifications as laid down in the schedule II and fulfils other requirements of recruitment as provided in the rules of and orders for the time being in force" 9. The Rule-5 of the Rules of 1980 begins with negative expression viz "no person shall be eligible". The claim of a person on the plain language of Rule 5 of Rules of 1980, either for appointment or for promotion to any post in any class, category or grade in the services could be considered only if he possessed qualifi­cation laid down in schedule-II and fulfilled other requirements of the recruitment as provided in the rules and orders for the time being in force, otherwise, he would not be eligible for being considered for being appointed by way of promotion on the next higher post. Admittedly, the petitioners and private respondents were appointed by way of promotion on the post of Senior Compilers, the feeding post for the post of Examiner on 11th November, 1991. The process for consideration for appointing the Senior Compiler by way of promotion on the post of Examiner was initiated prior to 13th October, 1997 and the said consideration process ultimately culminated in issuance of orders dated 13th October, 1997 and 17th October, 1997. The process for consideration for appointing the Senior Compiler by way of promotion on the post of Examiner was initiated prior to 13th October, 1997 and the said consideration process ultimately culminated in issuance of orders dated 13th October, 1997 and 17th October, 1997. Both petitioners and private respondents admittedly were lacking six years experi­ence. Whether the six years experience, which is the requirement for considering the candidate for being appointed by way of promotion on the post of Examiner has to be in Class-II viz the post of Senior Compiler alone or the six years experience would include even the experience gained while being member of Class-Ill Category-A viz Compilers. While interpreting the statute Court has initially to look into the plain language thereof. Examiner is the post borne on Class-I of the service, Senior Compiler is the post borne on Class-II of the service and Compiler is the post born on Class-Ill of the service. The post of Senior Compiler which is borne on Class-II of the service is required to be rilled by appointing a person by way of promotion on such post from Class-III Category-A from among persons having four years experience in that category. The purpose of using the expression of having "four years experience in that category" was requirement thereof in as much as Class-III of service comprises of two categories of posts, viz (A) Compilers and (B) Assistant Compilers. Since a Compiler alone is eligible for being considered for being appointed by way of promotion on the post of Senior Compiler that is why a special reference is made to the Class-ill Category-A. The post of Compiler is being filled up, 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion from Category-B from persons having two years experience. The post of Assistant Compiler is not feeding post for the post of Senior Compiler. The method of recruitment provided for post of Senior Com­piler in the Schedule-II is couched in the language, which has reference to feeding post viz Compiler. The learned counsel for the respondents claim that the experience of six years in terms of schedule-II of Rules of 1980 for the post of Examiner is the total experience gained by Senior Compiler on the post of Compiler and Senior Compiler for the above mentioned reason can not be accepted. The learned counsel for the respondents claim that the experience of six years in terms of schedule-II of Rules of 1980 for the post of Examiner is the total experience gained by Senior Compiler on the post of Compiler and Senior Compiler for the above mentioned reason can not be accepted. The very language used by the Rule Making Authority makes it writ large on the face of the statute that six years experience is to be had on the post of Senior Compiler. It is made clear by rule itself that only those persons from class-II who are having six years experience would be eligible for being considered for being appointed by way of promotion on the post of Examiner. There can be other members of class-II who can have less than six years experience, they are excluded ' for being considered for being appointed by way of promotion on the post of Examiner. Admittedly neither petitioners nor private respondents were possessed of requisite statutory experience of six years, on the date the process for promotion was initiated and on the date the respondents were appointed by way of promotion on the post of Examiners. Both petitioners and private respondents in the admitted facts of this case were ineligible for being considered for being appointed by way of promotion on the post of Examiners. The action of official respondents is definitely grave violation of statutory Rules. In the facts of this case there has been breach of doctrine of "equal protection of laws and equality before law" in as much as the rules of 1980 have been observed in breach resulting additionally in violation of constitutional protection guaranteed Article of the Constitution. Had the Departmental Promotion Committee initiated exercise after the members of class-II of the services had attained the requisite eligibilities in terms of schedule-II appended to Rules of 1980, may be, the situation would have been different. The entire exercise initiated by Departmental Promotion Committee in the facts of this case stands vitiated in law and is non-est. The consequent promotions made are rendered illegal. The impugned promotion orders have been made way back in the year 1997. It is submitted at bar by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have also been appointed by way of promotion on the post of Examiner. 10. The consequent promotions made are rendered illegal. The impugned promotion orders have been made way back in the year 1997. It is submitted at bar by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have also been appointed by way of promotion on the post of Examiner. 10. The petitioners though were ineligible at the time, promotions were made, have, however, right to challenge the promotion of private respondents as they were also ineligible at the relevant point of time. The benefit secured by private respondents has definitely affected the service rights of petitioners, as besides other adverse consentience to which they have been subjected to, they have been rendered junior to private respondents. 11. The writ petitions have to succeed yet on another ground viz that the composition of the Departmental Promotion Committee has not been in accordance with the mandate contained in the Rules of 1992 and the incompetent authority has thus initiated proceedings for considering the candidates for being appointed by way of promotion on the higher post. In law despite issuance of impugned orders, it can be said that no benefit is taken by private respondents. 12. For the above stated reasons these petitions are disposed of in the following manner. a. By issuance of writ of Certiorari, impugned orders Vide Order No. DF/Adm/217-of 1997 dated 13th October, 1997 and Order No. 224 of 1997 dated 17th October, 1997 are quashed. b. By issuance of writ of Mandamus, official respondents are directed to convene Departmental Promotion Committee within the period of 15 days from the date copy of this order is served on them and consider the petitioners and private respondents from the date they attained eligibility for being appointed by way of promotion on the post of Examiner and competent authority to pass appropriate orders thereafter. However, it is clarified, if any amongst private respondent in the meanwhile has retired on superannuation, this judgment shall not be pressed into service to take away any service benefit from such person. The competent authority to consider the claims and take a decision and pass appropriate orders within the period of two months from the date copy of this order is served on them. Till the orders are passed by the competent authority in pursuance of this judgement, the status of the private respondents shall not be disturbed.