ORDER 1. Petitioner, who at the relevant time was working in Municipal Corporation, Katni as a Sub-Overseer, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 29.4.1998 Annexure P-46, by which respondent No.4 has been promoted on the post of Zonal Officer in the then existing pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900. Challenge is also made to an order dated 101.1997 Annexure A-32, by which petitioner’s promotion initially ordered on 28.5.1987, on the post of Sub-Overseer, is annulled. 2. Petitioner claims to be a person having passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination and possessing License of Electrical Wireman, in both industrial and domestic category, so also a Diploma in Local Self-Government. Between the period 17.6.1974 to 31.12.1975, petitioner was appointed on a fixed salary in the Water Works Department of the erstwhile Municipal Council, Mudwara. Subsequently, with effect from 1.1.1976, he was substantively appointed as an Electrical Mistry in the Water Works Department of the same Municipal Council, Mudwara. Annexure A-1 is the copy of the said order. Municipal Council, Mudwara was subsequently merged and Municipal Corporation, Katni was created and petitioner’s services were taken over by the newly constituted Municipal Corporation. It seems that various correspondences took place and looking to the seniority of the petitioner and based on his work experience, vide order dated 28.5.1987 Annexure A-11, petitioner was promoted on the post of Sub-Overseer. 3. Respondent No.4 Shri Vishnu Prasad Sahu was appointed as an Electrical Mistry like the petitioner in the year 1982. After the petitioner was promoted as Sub-Overseer on 28.5.1987 and while petitioner was so working as Sub-Overseer (Electrical), respondent No.4 was made an Officiating Supervisor on 3.1.1992. 4. However, on 22.9.1993, petitioner was given the additional charge of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) and on 24.12.1994 vide Annexure A-21, proceeding for promoting the petitioner on the post of Sub-Engineer was initiated. Near about the same time, on 6.11.1995, proceedings were held and a Departmental Promotion Committee recommended for promotion of respondent No.4 on the regular post of Supervisor and vide Annexure A-23, on 5.12.1995, respondent No.4 was promoted as Supervisor. However, before the petitioner could be promoted as Sub-Engineer, various persons filed writ petition before this Court in the year 1989 being M.P. No.129/1989, wherein the promotion of petitioner and certain other persons on the post of Sub-Overseer vide Annexure A-11 dated 28.5.1987 was challenged. However, before the petitioner could be promoted as Sub-Engineer, various persons filed writ petition before this Court in the year 1989 being M.P. No.129/1989, wherein the promotion of petitioner and certain other persons on the post of Sub-Overseer vide Annexure A-11 dated 28.5.1987 was challenged. It was the grievance of the petitioners in M.P. No.129/1989 that without preparing any Seniority List and over-looking the claim of other eligible candidates, the petitioner and other persons were promoted as Sub-Overseer and as the said promotion is illegal, prayer made was to quash the promotion. The writ petition was heard by this Court and vide order dated 17.9.1996 Annexure A-29, a Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the promotion of Sub-Overseers ordered in the case of petitioner and various others, was without preparing a Seniority List, no procedure was followed and the order was passed by the Administrator, who was not competent to pass the order under the statutory service regulation. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, promotion of the petitioner was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Department to reconsider the matter after preparing a proper Seniority List. 5. In pursuance to the said order passed in M.P. No.129/1989, a DPC was held and proceedings were initiated between 16.12.1996 to 27.12.1996, the DPC considered the case of the petitioner and found that as he did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Sub-Overseer (Civil), therefore, Annexure A-32, the impugned order, was passed on 10.1.1997 reverting the petitioner to his substantive post. Petitioner preferred a review application being R.P. No.221/1997, which was pending at the time when the writ petition was filed, but has now been disposed of. In the meanwhile, proceeding for promotion of the petitioner on the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) was undertaken vide Annexure A-37 and it seems that the matter was so pending. However, grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner and respondent No.4 were appointed as Electrical Mistry initially -- petitioner was appointed in the year 1976 and respondent No.4 was appointed in the year 1982, and even though respondent No.4 is junior, he is promoted as a Supervisor by the DPC on 3.1.1992 vide Annexure A-39; and is promoted a Zonal Officer vide Annexure A-46. As the post of Sub-Overseer (Electrical) and Zonal Officer carry equal pay, grievance of the petitioner is that similar treatment as is granted to respondent No.4 should be granted or the promotion of respondent No.4 as Zonal Officer should be quashed and he be brought at par with the petitioner. 6. Taking me through the documents and material available on record, a two fold submission was made by Shri G.P. Kekre, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of hearing. His first contention was that in the order passed by a Bench of this Court vide Annexure A-29, on 17.9.1996, the only infirmity found in the promotion of the petitioner as Sub-Overseer was that a Seniority List was not prepared and the Administrator was not competent to promote the petitioner. However, on a toally new ground that the petitioner lacks qualification, in the DPC held on 28.12.1996, petitioner is denied promotion, which is unsustainable. Contending that in the Recruitment Rules, for promotion of departmental candidates, there is no provision prescribing any qualification and, therefore, the petitioner should have been promoted, relief is sought for and it is also stated that earlier also before promoting the petitioner one Shri Ramesh Chandra Raikwar was promoted as Sub-Overseer, he was similarly situated like the petitioner and similar benefit is denied to the petitioner. Accordingly, contending that the reversion and denial of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Sub-Overseer on the ground that he is lacking qualification is unsustainable, challenge is made to the action reverting the petitioner. 7. As far as challenge to the promotion granted to respondent No.4 on the post of Zonal Officer is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that as both the post of Zonal Officer and Sub-Overseer carry similar pay-scale and as the petitioner is discriminated in the matter of granting promotion in comparison to respondent No.4, who is junior to the petitioner in the matter of induction into the initial cadre as Electrical Mistry, petitioner should either be treated at par with respondent No.4 or the promotions granted to respondent No.4 should be quashed. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though respondent No.4 was first promoted as Supervisor on 5.12.1995 and thereafter as Zonal Officer on 29.4.1998, the grievance arose to the petitioner only when he was reverted on 10.1.1997, on the ground of lack of qualification. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though respondent No.4 was first promoted as Supervisor on 5.12.1995 and thereafter as Zonal Officer on 29.4.1998, the grievance arose to the petitioner only when he was reverted on 10.1.1997, on the ground of lack of qualification. Accordingly, contending that the petitioner be granted the benefit as prayed for, this writ petition is filed. 8. Shri Arpan J. Pawar, learned counsel for respondent No.4, and Shri Hitendra Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, emphasized that the case of the petitioner and that of respondent No.4 are entirely different. Petitioner is only higher secondary passed person with a License in Electrical Wiring whereas respondent No.4 is a graduate and the post held by the petitioner and respondent No.4 are entirely different, in totally different cadres. Even though both were inducted as Electrical Mistry, petitioner chose to go into the cadre of Sub-Overseer and Sub-Engineer; and respondent No.4 was granted promotion and appointment on the post of Supervisor and subsequently as Zonal Officer in a totally different cadre. It is stated that merely because the post in both these cadre carry identical pay-scale, petitioner cannot compare his case with that of respondent No.4 in as much as respondent No.4 has been granted the said promotion based on his work experience and the recommendation of a DPC, which considered his case for promotion, it is emphasized that for appointment and promotion to the post of Supervisor and Zonal Officer, no statutory rule or regulation is formulated and, therefore, as per the by-laws of the Municipal Corporation, the decision is taken by the Municipal Corporation after due approval of the Appropriate Committee and in the present case as the approval of the said committee is granted, it is stated that petitioner cannot challenge the action of granting benefit of respondent No.4, as the cadre in which respondent No.4 is granted promotion is entirely different from that of the petitioner. 9. I have heared learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 10. 9. I have heared learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 10. Two aspects of the matter are required to be considered in this writ petition : The first aspect is with regard to reversion of the petitioner from the post of Sub-Overseer based on the order passed on 17.9.1996 in M.P. No.129/1989; and, the second aspect is with regard to promotion of respondent No.4 in the cadre of Supervisor and Zonal Officer. 11. As far as the first ground is concerned, in the order passed by this Court on 17.9.1996 vide Annexure A-29 in M.P. No.129/1989, it has been held that promotion on the post of Sub-Overseer from the feeder cadre of time keeper has been undertaken in the year 1986, 1987 and 1988 in an illegal manner; proper Seniority List of employees working in the department and various branches as contemplated under rule 15 of the Municipal Services (Scale of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1967’) was not prepared, eligible candidates were not considered, and the entire action was taken by the Administrator without due authority of law. Therefore, the State Government and the Municipal Corporation were directed to convene a meeting of the District Selection Committee and take a decision, that also after the seniority list was prepared. The District Selection Committee conducted its deliberations and found that the petitioner lacks proper qualification for being appointed as a Overseer or Sub-Overseer. 12. The Municipal Services (Scale of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1967 prescribes a post of Sub-Overseer and the qualification given for appointment to the said post is Diploma from an Institute recognized by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. 13. Admittedly, the said qualification is not possessed by the petitioner and in the statutory rules prescribed for appointment as Sub-Overseer, certain qualifications have been prescribed. Even though Shri Kekre, learned counsel for the petitioner, tried to emphasize that this qualification prescribed in the statutory rule is only for direct recruitment and is not applicable for appointment of departmental candidates, but the Schedule under which the said designation and qualification are prescribed, indicates that it is in Schedule III of the Rules formulated under rule 6, and the provisions of rule 6 contemplates the departmental set-up and designation of post. It is, therefore, clear that in the Schedule appended to the Rules and under rule 6, certain qualifications have been prescribed for appointment on the post of Overseer and the petitioner does not fulfil the aforesaid criteria. That being so, if the petitioner’s promotion on the post of Sub-Overseer ordered vide Annexure A-11 on 28.5.1987 is annulled by the Departmental Promotion Committee based on the directions issued by this Court in M.P. No.129/1989, I find no error in the same. Petitioner’s promotion had been challenged and this Court vide Annexure A-29, on 17.9.1996, directed for reconsideration of the matter by the District Selection Committee, which reconsidered the matter taking note of the qualifications required for appointment to the post as per the statutory rule and found that the petitioner lacks qualification and, therefore, the impugned action of reverting the petitioner to the original post was undertaken. In doing so, no error has been committed and, therefore, on this count interference into the matter is not called for. To that effect, the relief claimed for by the petitioner cannot be granted, and the same has to be rejected. 14. As far as the second aspect of the matter is concerned, except for the fact that both petitioner and respondent No.4 were initially appointed as Electrical Mistry, it is seen that in the year 1987 petitioner became a Sub-Overseer and thereafter was considered and granted additional charge of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) on 22.9.1993. However, respondent No.4 shifted to a new channel and became a Supervisor on 3.1.1992, initially in the officiating capacity, and on a regular basis after Annexure A-23 was issued on 5.12.1995. The channel of career development of both petitioner and respondent No.4 was bifurcated, both went into different channel and in the channel undertaken by the petitioner it was finally found that he does not possess the requisite qualification and, therefore, certain action was taken against him. As far as respondent No.4 is concerned, it is clear that in the statutory rules, the post of Supervisor or Zonal Officer is not stipulated. As far as respondent No.4 is concerned, it is clear that in the statutory rules, the post of Supervisor or Zonal Officer is not stipulated. The post is created on the basis of departmental requirement, after approval of the State Government and the proceedings of the DPC held for considering the case of respondent No.4 for appointment as a Supervisor, which is available at page 76 of the paper-book, show that on 6.11.1995 the DPC was constituted and looking to the work experience, his qualification and other requirements respondent No.4 was recommended for appointment as a Supervisor and subsequently in the DPC held on 3.1.1998 vide Annexure A-39, respondent No.4 was recommended for promotion as Zonal Officer, taking note of his qualification and work experience. The post of Supervisor and Zonal Officer is not contemplated in any statutory rules, the post has been created after due sanction of the State Government and if looking to the qualification and work experience of respondent No.4, he has been promoted to this post, merely because the post in which the petitioner was initially promoted illegally and the post on which respondent No.4 is promoted hold similar pay-scale i.e. Sub-Overseer and Supervisor, the promotion of respondent No.4 cannot be termed as illegal or incorrect. Petitioner can only claim his right to promotion as per the Rules applicable based on his qualification and experience and if the case of respondent No.4 is considered in a different cadre for promotion based on his qualification and experience, merely because in the initial post of induction into the Corporation petitioner is senior, the action for promoting respondent No.4 cannot be termed as illegal. Both petitioner and respondent No.4 chose different cadre after entering into service and if based on their work experience and qualification, promotions were granted by the Municipal Corporation to respondent No.4, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. 15. Now, petitioner has retired and respondent No.4 is holding the post of Deputy Commissioner. Both petitioner and respondent No.4 chose different cadre after entering into service and if based on their work experience and qualification, promotions were granted by the Municipal Corporation to respondent No.4, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. 15. Now, petitioner has retired and respondent No.4 is holding the post of Deputy Commissioner. The promotion of respondent No.4 as Supervisor and as Zonal Officer impugned in this writ petition, are based on the recommendations made by a duly constituted DPC and respondent No.4 has been promoted on the post sanctioned by the State Government based on his qualification and work experience and merely because petitioner has grievance with regard to these promotion after his reversion, interference into the matter is not called for until and unless this Court find fault in the promotion of respondent No.4 on the post of Supervisor and Zonal Officer. 16. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case as petitioner’s reversion is because of his lack of qualification and as respondent No.4 is promoted in a totally different channel based on his qualification and work experience based on the recommendations of a duly constituted committee, I have no hesitation in holding that the grievance put forth by the petitioner is without any merit and the same does not warrant any consideration. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, I see no reason to interfere into the matter, particularly now after the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 17. Accordingly, finding no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.