Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The complaint is that the petitioners, who are Senior Executive Engineers and presently being on deputation as Technical Executive at E-6 level with Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam, the 1st respondent, have not been absorbed on the establishment of the said respondent at E-7A level irrespective of being eligible as per the recruitment rules, hence the present writ petition with the following prayer(s): (i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the order dated 23.7.2012 passed by the office of respondent No.1-company and further direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to intervene in the matter and settle the dispute once for all while maintaining 40% minimum staff of the respondent No.3-Board in each level as agreed at the time of execution of various agreements (MOU) and make permanent absorption of the employees of the respondent No.3-Board strictly as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of respondent No.1-Company being applied to its employees while promoting them and justice be done. (ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ as deemed fit may kindly be issued for declaring the stipulation/condition No.10 in the agreement dated 20.102004 to absorb the employees of the respondent No.3-Board at levels as per the existing agreed equivalence which provide to absorb the employees of the Board at lower level as illegal, arbitrary, inoperative, null and void and unconstitutional and justice be done. (iii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent NO.1 to consider the candidature of the petitioners for absorption at a level to which they are eligible strictly as per the Recruitment Rules of the respondent No.1 as adopted for its employees while adhering to the conditions as stipulated in the office order dated 13.3.2002 and justice be done. (iv) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent NO.1 to take on deputation and permanent absorption the employee of the board on the basis of the cadre strength of each level as per agreements entered for execution of Rampur Hydro Electgric Project, Luhri Hydro Electric Project and Dhaula Sidh Hydro Electric Project to the minimum cadre strength of 40% on each level and further the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to ensure that the respondent No.1-company takes the minimum 40% staff of the respondent No.3 board on the basis of cadre strength of each category of the employees deputed by it and justice be done.” 2. In a nutshell it has been claimed that the petitioners initially were appointed as Assistant Engineers in the 3rd respondent-Board on different dates in the year 1989. Initially, the Nathpa Jhakri Hydel project was being executed by Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation pursuant to agreement dated 23.7.1991 (Annexure P-5) signed on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh by Shri Shanta Kumar, the then Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh and on behalf of the Union of India by Shri Kalap Nath Rai, Minister of State IC (Power and NES). However, Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation, a joint venture of Govt. of India and State of Himachal Pradesh later on changed into respondent No.1-Nigam. 3. Although the erstwhile Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation had to set up its own organization for execution of the project, yet in terms of clause 3.1 of the agreement, the services of 2870 personnel in different ranks had to be taken over by the Corporation from the 3rd respondent-Board. Similar agreements Annexures P-6, P-7 and P-8 like the one Annexure P-5 came to be executed between the Government of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No.1-Nigam in respect of execution of Rampur Hydro Electric Project in District Shimla, Dhaulasidh Hydro Electric Project in District Hamirpur and Luhri Hydro Electric Project in villages Neerath and Chaba in Shimla, Mandi and Kullu Districts, respectively. The Petitioners thus served the Corporation and thereafter respondent No.1-Nigam on secondment basis and in the meanwhile were promoted as Senior Executive Engineers also. 4. The Petitioners thus served the Corporation and thereafter respondent No.1-Nigam on secondment basis and in the meanwhile were promoted as Senior Executive Engineers also. 4. Now the petitioners claim their absorption in respondent No.1-Nigam in Executive Class i.e. E-7A level, allegedly being eligible for the same in accordance with rules and also the absorption of staff of respondent No.3-Board to the extent of 40% of the approved strength on the establishment of the 1st respondent-Nigam in all the projects being executed pursuant to Annexures P-5 to P-8, supra. 5. As per the seniority list, as it stood on 31.10.2011 and circulated by respondent No.3-Board on 10.1.2012, vide circular letter Annexure P-1, the petitioners are at Sr. No. 19, 32, 40 and 47 respectively. They are thus Senior Executive Engineers in rank in the 3rd respondent-Board. 6. The petitioners seem to be aggrieved from item No.10 of the agreement dated 20.10.2004 (Annexure P-6), which reads as follows: “10. The Nigam agrees to take HPSEB employees on absorption at levels as per the existing agreed equivalence with maximum upper age limit being 55 years.”, and also from office memorandum dated 13.4.2012 Annexure P-11, which provides for the criteria applicable to absorption of the staff on the establishment of 3rd respondent’s/ Government of H.P., Executive Category in 1st respondent Nigam, which reads as under: “It has been decided henceforth incase of permanent absorption, all Executives are required to provide data and Power Point presentation in4 slides containing the following information: 1. Personal profile of the Executive clearly indicating his Educational qualification (Academic/Professional) with percentage of Marks/Division, year of passing and Institute (Matriculation onwards). 2. Detailed Executive experience, which should – one slide include details of Post profession educational qualification experience in case of Executives, who have joined at Executive level and also supervisory experience in case they had been inducted at supervisory level-one slide. The above experienced profile should also indicate, details in case the official has served in PSUs other than SJVN including the details of Department and the place of postings. 3. Significant overall contribution of the Executive to SJVN, since his joining - two slides, 10-15 points.” 7. The equivalences and adoption terms in respect of employees (Executives) like the petitioners find mention in office order dated March 13, 2002 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.1 Nigam. 3. Significant overall contribution of the Executive to SJVN, since his joining - two slides, 10-15 points.” 7. The equivalences and adoption terms in respect of employees (Executives) like the petitioners find mention in office order dated March 13, 2002 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.1 Nigam. As per this document, the following criteria has been prescribed for determining the equivalency between the staff on the establishment of 1st respondent- Nigam and that on secondment basis from respondent No.3-Board. “4.4. While reviewing the equivalence for the purpose of its up-gradation, the Committee will give due regard to vacancy position and job requirements of NJPC for the relevant post especially for the post of DGM & above.” 8. In terms of para 6.1 of office order Annexure P-4, supra, equivalencies to be determined in accordance with para 4.4, as above, will only be relevant for the purpose of deputation, which reads as under: “6.1 The equivalences determined above are for deputation only. However, for the purposes of permanent absorption/recruitment, the criteria will be in accordance with NJPC’s recruitment rules.” 9. Part-I of Annexure to office order Annexure P-4 provides for equivalency in respect of Technical Executives of rd respondent-Board vis-à-vis their level in erstwhile Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation, presently respondent No.1-Nigam, which is as follows: Sr. No. NJPC Level Level in HPSEB 1. E-1 1. AE 0-4 years 2. JE (diploma holder) 9 years and HDM with 6 years. 3 CHDM any. 2. E-2 AE/AEE7 4+ -7 years 3. E-3 AE/AEE 7+ -10 years 4. E-4 AE/AEE 10 years plus 5. E-5 i) Sr. XEN 0-2 years. ii) AE/AEE/Xen (re-designated) with 16 years experience and having scale of SE. 6. E-6 i) Add. SE any/Sr. Xen 2 years + with Graduation in Engineering and Minimum service of 20 years in the post of AE & above. 7. E-7 SE 0-4 years 8. E-7A SE 4 years+ 9. E8 CE any. 10. It is seen that the petitioners, who are Senior Executive Engineers having been promoted as such in the years 2006/2007/2008 respectively, fall under 6th category, i.e. E-6 level. 7. E-7 SE 0-4 years 8. E-7A SE 4 years+ 9. E8 CE any. 10. It is seen that the petitioners, who are Senior Executive Engineers having been promoted as such in the years 2006/2007/2008 respectively, fall under 6th category, i.e. E-6 level. Guidelines for absorption of man-power in 1st respondent-Nigam from respondent No.3-Board permanently find mention in Annexure P-16 to the writ petition, which are as follows: “(A) For Executive Position The executives have been further categorized in following 5 bands Executive Position: Band I E-1, E-2, E-3 Band II E-4, E-5 Band III E-6 Band IV E-7, E-7A Band V E-8, E-9. Absorption of 30% manpower in the executive category will be maintained separately for each of the bands which will be worked out taking into account the sanctioned manpower. Job Specifications for Executive Positions i) Engineering Disciplines Professional Qualifications: Professional qualifications for absorption in various executive posts will be the same as for the direct recruits notified from time to time. Experience: Required number of years of experience will be as per the equivalence adopted vide office order dated 13.3.2002 for the purpose of secondment of HPSEB employees and shall not be less than the number of years of experience specified in SJVN job specifications. Nature of Experience: Candidates should have experience in Hydropower plants in the areas of Design, Construction, Erection and Operation & Maintenance. xxx xxxx xxxx Age Bar: As far as possible, employees who are 55 years of age and below on the date of nomination will only be considered for absorption. Any relaxation in this regard may be allowed with the approval of CMD in writing in each case. Service Weightage to Seconded Employees: Inter-se seniority of those coming from HPSEB & already on secondment to NJPC and opting for absorption will be maintained. Such employees will be considered for service weightage to the extent they have rendered service in a equivalent level to be determined through equivalence table. xxx xxxx xxxxx Absorption: After the selection of the employees from HPSEB, they will have to resign from HPSEB to join NJPC on permanent absorption basis. Once absorbed in NJPC, they will be taken on the regular rolls of NJPC. Reservation to SC/ST/OBC: GOI Policy on reservation will be applicable in the case of absorption as in the case of direct recruitment. Once absorbed in NJPC, they will be taken on the regular rolls of NJPC. Reservation to SC/ST/OBC: GOI Policy on reservation will be applicable in the case of absorption as in the case of direct recruitment. xxx xxxx xxxxx Shortfall in 30%: In the event of required percentage of manpower being not available for selection or not being found suitable for selection as per selection criteria, it will be the responsibility of HPSEB to recruit the required manpower to fulfill the desired percentage of absorption. However, in case HPSEB fails to do so within a reasonable period of time and if such posts cannot be kept vacant in the interest of work of the project, SJVN may undertake to recruitment against the 30% quota to the extent of shortfall.” 11. Now if coming to the criteria to be followed for recruitment of Executives in respondent No.1-Nigam, the same finds mention in Annexure P-10 and reads as under: “36.0In ‘Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam’ there are ten levels in ‘Executive Category’ from E0 to E9, i.e. from the level of Executive to Executive Director. During the formative stage of SJVN, the recruitment in the initial years was done at all levels. After the commissioning of NJHEP and undertaking the new projects, the career growth prospects of existing employees can be ensured only by restricting the recruitment at induction level, i.e. Executive Trainee-E0 level. The induction at intermediate level during the construction phases of new projects may be made with the approval of Appointing Authority. The job specifications for the recruitment of executives will be as under: 36.1 The job specifications i.e. Level, Total Post Qualification Experience, Upper Age Limit will be as per the details shown in the following Table: LEVES DESIGNATION MINIMUM POSTQUALIFICATION RELEVANT EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE UPPER AGE LIMIT E-9 Executive Director 25 Yrs. Out of which at least 02 years in the immediate lower grade/scale (IDA/CDA) 55 E-8 General Manager 23 yrs out of which at least 2 years in the immediate lower grade/scale (IDA/CDA) 55 E-7A Addl. General Manager 21 yrs out of which at least 2 yrs in the immediate lower grade/scale (IDA/CDA) 50 E-7 Dy. General Manager 18 yrs out of which at least 3 yrs in the immediate lower grade/scale (IDA/CDA) 50 E-6 Sr. General Manager 21 yrs out of which at least 2 yrs in the immediate lower grade/scale (IDA/CDA) 50 E-7 Dy. General Manager 18 yrs out of which at least 3 yrs in the immediate lower grade/scale (IDA/CDA) 50 E-6 Sr. Manager 15 yrs out of which at least 3 yrs in the immediate lower grade/scale (IDA/CDA) 45 E-5 Manager 12 yrs out of which at least 3 yrs in the immediate lower grade/scale (IDA/CDA) 45 E-4 Dy. Manager 9 yrs out of which at least 3 yrs in the immediate lower grade/scale (IDA/CDA) 35 E-3 Sr. Officer/Engineer 6 yrs out of which at least 3 yrs in the immediate lower grade/scale (IDA/CDA) 35 E-2 Officer/Engineer 3 yrs after acquiring requisite professional qualification 30 E-1 Asstt. Officer/AE 1 yr after acquiring requisite professional qualification. 30 E-0 Executive Trainee No experience 30 Note: Pay Scales as approved by MOP (GOI) from time to time corresponding to the levels shown above will be mentioned in the advertisement, as well as in the offers of appointment. In case final Scales are not approved, Adhoc Scales will be indicated.” 12. Since this Court is concerned with Technical Executives category, therefore, the essential qualification for their entry at intermediate level, which finds mention in para 36.2 of annexure P-10, reads as under: Engineering Degree in respective Engineering Discipline, discipline from a recognized -Civil University/Institute of India. -Electrical -Mechanical -Electronics & Communication -Control & Instrumentation 13. Case of the petitioners, as set out in the writ petition, is that as per recruitment rules, 21 years experience is prescribed for recruitment against E7A intermediate level in respondent No.1-Nigam and the Project Engineers of respondent No.3-Board, like the petitioners, having 22 years experience, are eligible for absorption in E7A level. According to the petitioners, they having already put in more than 21 years service and also having 3 years service in the immediate lower grade required for their absorption at E-7A level, are fully eligible, however, the equivalency table annexed to circular dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure P-2) is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. No equivalency table is found to have been circulated vide circular dated 5.8.2010, Annexure P-2. However, condition No.2 of this circular provides that absorption shall be carried out as per approved equivalence table and policy guidelines (Annexure P-16) with maximum age limit of 55 years as on closing date. 14. No equivalency table is found to have been circulated vide circular dated 5.8.2010, Annexure P-2. However, condition No.2 of this circular provides that absorption shall be carried out as per approved equivalence table and policy guidelines (Annexure P-16) with maximum age limit of 55 years as on closing date. 14. As further noticed from Guidelines Annexure P-16, the required number of years of experience will be as per the equivalence adopted vide office order dated 13.3.2002 (Annexure P-4 discussed hereinabove) for the purpose of secondment of HPSEB employees and shall not be less than the number of years of experience specified by the 1st respondent qua job specification in its rules. 15. Now if coming to Annexure to office order dated 13.3.2002 (Annexure P-4 supra), an Executive at E-7A level on the establishment of respondent No.1-Nigam is equivalent to an officer in the rank of Superintending Engineer having 4 years or more service as such on the establishment of respondent No.3-Board. 16. It is worthwhile to mention here that on these very grounds and for the grant of similar reliefs, the petitioners had filed Civil Writ Petition bearing Registration No.3956 of 2012 before this court. The same was disposed of vide judgment dated 25.5.2012 (Annexure P-13) by a Division Bench of this court. It is pursuant to the judgment Annexure P-13, the petitioners had made representation Annexure P-14 to the 1st respondent-Nigam, highlighting their grievance thereunder and redressal thereof. 1st respondent for the reasons recorded in its order dated 23.7.2012, Annexure P-15, has, however, rejected the same being devoid of merit. 17. The sole grouse of the petitioners as highlighted by the learned counsel during the course of arguments is that when the petitioners are duly eligible for absorption in respondent No.1-Nigam permanently as Technical Executives at E-7A level, the denial to absorb them is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions under the agreement executed between the 1st respondent-Nigam and the Government qua execution of various hydro electric projects by the 1st respondent-Nigam. 18. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the 1st respondent-Nigam while repelling the submissions so made on behalf of the petitioners has forcefully contended that the petitioners are not the officers in the rank of Superintending Engineers in their parent department and as per the equivalences determined qua various posts on the establishment of 1st respondent-Nigam vis-à-vis the posts under the 3rd respondent-Board, the 1st respondent has rightly ignored them for permanent absorption being not entitled, because the posts in the rank of Senior Executives, they are holding in their parent department, cannot be equated with Executive Class at E-7A level on the establishment of 1st respondent-Nigam. 19. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court after hearing learned counsel on both sides and going through the record, had passed the following order in this writ petition on 22.8.2012: “Respondent No. 1 and 3 to file short reply as to whether the petitioners are eligible for consideration for posting as Executive E-7A level. Short reply in that regard shall be filed within three weeks. Post on 20th September, 2012. In the meanwhile, in case Executive E-7A posts are filled up or absorbed, such absorption/promotion will only be as per the quota.” 20. Only respondents No.1 and 3 have filed reply-affidavit(s) in terms of this Court’s order referred to above. So far as the 2nd respondent is concerned, no reply has been filed even after the admission of this writ petition. 21. The stand of 1st respondent, as emerges from reply-affidavit, is that the petitioners being serving as Senior Executive Engineers/Additional Superintending Engineers in respondent No.3-Board, have been given equivalence of E-6 level, i.e. Sr. Manager, which is two levels below from level E-7A (Addl. General Manager), being claimed by them. The absorption at Level E-7A to can be claimed by those deputationists who are Superintending Engineers on the establishment of 3rd respondent-Board and having 4 years experience as such, as per Part-I of Annexure to office order dated 13.3.2002, Annexure P-4. Since the petitioners have not been promoted as Superintending Engineers by the parent department, i.e. respondent No.3-Board, hence not eligible for being absorbed at E7A level in respondent No.1 Nigam. A reference in this behalf has been made to the guidelines (Annexure P-16) to the writ petition, discussed supra. 22. Since the petitioners have not been promoted as Superintending Engineers by the parent department, i.e. respondent No.3-Board, hence not eligible for being absorbed at E7A level in respondent No.1 Nigam. A reference in this behalf has been made to the guidelines (Annexure P-16) to the writ petition, discussed supra. 22. While making a reference to Clause 10 of agreement Annexure P-6 qua taking manpower on absorption at levels qua execution of the Hydro Electric Project, it is submitted that respondent No.1-Nigam had agreed to absorb the employees of respondent No.3-Board as per the equivalence determined with maximum age limit of 55 years. Clause 17 of the agreement ibid has also been pressed into service, which reads as follows: “HPSEB employees, who are on deputation in Nigam, will be eligible for upgradation of equivalence only when they become eligible for higher equivalence and vacancy for higher equivalence in higher post is available in the Nigam. This will be done in accordance with procedure made by the Nigam and would be applicable from standard dates, i.e. 1st January & st July of every year.” 23. While referring to the quota for absorption under the agreement, meant for the staff of respondent No.3, it has been submitted that 244 deputationists have already been absorbed in respondent No.1-Nigam permanently and offer to 441 more deputationists in the categories of workman, supervisor and executive, to join the establishment of respondent No.1-Nigam, on or before 31.12.2012, has already been given. While making reference to the tabulated information Annexure R1/A, showing quota prescribed for employees of respondent No.3-Board in terms of clause-7 and 38 of agreement Annexure P-6, it is submitted that against 679 employees of the 3rd respondent-Board, 772 have already been absorbed. Similarly, as per Annexure R1/B, the quota meant for absorption of employees of respondent No.3-Board at E-7A level, against 23 positions, 28 have already been absorbed permanently and 4 more are on deputation basis. It is highlighted that as per agreement Annexure P-6, quota is meant only for absorption and retention of deputationists of respondent No.3-Board and not for their promotion and upgradation. 24. It is highlighted that as per agreement Annexure P-6, quota is meant only for absorption and retention of deputationists of respondent No.3-Board and not for their promotion and upgradation. 24. As per further case of respondent No.1, in terms of the guidelines (Annexure R1/C) approved by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 27.12.2003, inter se seniority of those coming from HPSEB and already on deputation with respondent No.1 and opting for absorption, is required to be maintained. 25. The 3rd respondent in short reply to the writ petition while referring to the service particulars of the petitioner in para 3 thereof, has submitted that in view of the petitioners having rendered more than 21 years of service in total and also more than 2 years as Sr. Executive Engineers in the immediate lower grade, they are entitled to be placed at E-7A level as per the provisions contained in HRM Manual, Annexure P-10 read with Annexure P-2. 26. If considering the entire gamut in the above scenario, admittedly the petitioners are in the rank of Sr. Executive Engineer/Addl. Superintending Engineers on the establishment of respondent No.3-Board. As per equivalence, i.e. Part-I of Annexure to office order Annexure P-4, an Executive at level E-7A on the establishment of respondent No.1-Nigam is equivalent to an officer in the rank of Superintending Engineer with minimum 4 years service as such. In terms of the agreement discussed supra, respondent No.1-Nigam is liable to make recruitment of staff, i.e. technical, supervisory and workmen from the staff on the establishment of respondent No.3-Board, by way of permanent absorption, however, purely in accordance with the equivalence of such staff on the establishment of respondent No.1-Nigam, as discussed supra. It is not obligatory on the part of respondent No.1-Nigam to promote such staff, if on deputation on its establishment or upgrade them and then to absorb against appropriate level on its establishment. 27. The petitioners may have the experience of over 21 years in their grade and eligible in terms of the rules, Annexure P-10, meant for recruitment of Executives at intermediate level on the establishment of respondent No.1-Nigam, however, unless and until they are promoted to an appropriate rank by their parent department, i.e. 3rd respondent-Board, they are not justified in claiming their absorption in respondent No.1-Nigam permanently at E-7A level, being Sr. Executive Engineers/Addl. Executive Engineers/Addl. Superintending Engineers in their parent department and having been equated at E6 level in respondent No.1-Nigam. They are two level below from level E-7A. There may be officers seniors to them in the 3rd respondent-Board or on deputation basis with 1st respondent-Nigam and as per the decision of the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent, taken in its meeting held on 27.12.2003, the inter se seniority of the employees of respondent No.3-Board either on deputation basis or absorbed permanently, is required to be maintained. Therefore, on this score also, the 1st respondent has rightly refused to absorb the petitioners at E-7A level unless and until they are promoted by their parent department as Superintending Engineer and have the minimum qualifying service as such in order to avoid the dispute inter se the petitioners and other staff of 3rd respondent-Board on deputation or permanently absorbed in the office of 1st respondent. 28. Surprisingly enough, irrespective of the claim of the petitioners having been rejected by the 1st respondent on the sole ground that they have not been promoted so far as the Superintending Engineers by their parent department, hence can not be absorbed at E-7A level, no plausible explanation is forthcoming either from the side of the petitioners or the 3rd respondent-Board as to how without their promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineers, a condition precedent, they can be absorbed in Executive class on the establishment of 1st respondent-Nigam at E-7A level. 29. In view of there being an agreement between the st respondent and the 2nd respondent qua execution of the projects in question, it is for them to see that the quota in the matter of absorption/retention of staff belonging to 3rd respondent-Board is being maintained in terms of the agreement referred to hereinabove or not, and so far as the petitioners are concerned, they have no locus-standi to raise any hue and cry in this behalf. Any how, this court is satisfied from the reply to the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent that it is not only the quota is being maintained, but the number of employees already absorbed or on deputation basis, is on higher side as compared to their entitlement. Documents Annexures R1/A, R1/B and also R1/C can be pressed in service in this behalf. 30. There is no rejoinder to this part of the case of 1st respondent. Documents Annexures R1/A, R1/B and also R1/C can be pressed in service in this behalf. 30. There is no rejoinder to this part of the case of 1st respondent. Above all in the event of shortage the 3rd respondent-Board is being impressed upon to forward more eligible personnel for absorption. 31. Thus, the 1st respondent-Nigam has not committed any illegality or irregularity while rejecting the representation Annexure P-14 made by the petitioners vide impugned order Annexure P-15. No case for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-15 is made out. 32. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.