JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge Complaint is that the petitioners, though senior and eligible under Rule 10 (b) (iv) of the Himachal Public Works Department, Junior Engineer (Civil) Class-III (Non-Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2007 for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), however, have been ignored and to the contrary the service particulars such as ACRs and (V.C.C) Vigilance Clearance Certificate etc. of the persons junior to them have been sought by the 2nd respondent vide impugned order Annexure P-6 and initiated thereby process to promote them as Junior Engineer. 2. The relief claimed in this writ petition reads as follows: “i) That the action of the respondents not to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion prior to the private respondents may kindly be declared as illegal and respondents be directed to make promotions to the post of Junior Engineers from the quota meant for I.T.I trained Work Inspectors in accordance with seniority list Annexure P-1 and to promote the petitioners with all consequential benefits. ii) That in case during the pendency of the writ petition any promotion is made by the respondents on the basis of order dated 12.7.2010 on and above the petitioner, the same may be quashed and set aside and the petitioners may kindly be granted benefit of promotion as Junior Engineers with all consequential benefits. iii) That the impugned order dated 12.7.2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent it relates to the quota for promotion to the post of Junior Engineers from the category of I.T.I. trained Work Inspectors.” 3. On 30th July, 2010, in the interim it is ordered as under: “The proceedings may go on. However, before actually implementing the order, permission will be sought from the court.” 4. The service particulars of the petitioners and private respondents as contained in Annexure R-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 6.9.2012 reads as follows: Sr. Name and Date of Edu./Tech.Qualification Date of Name of Institute Whether No. designation appointment acquiring recognized/ of W.I.S/Shri Tech. Non Qualification recognized CWP No. 4379 of 2010 Petitioners 1. Sushil Kumar 11.1.1991 Interim certificate in the 31.3.2009 State Professional Training Mode of trade of D/Man Council of Utter Pradesh distance Admin.& Labour Department Utrakhand ITI Shrinagar Gharwaj in the year 31.3.09. 2. Tarsem Kumar 1.1.1994 Interim certificate in the trade of surveyor 4.8.2007 State Professional Training Council of Utter Pradesh Admin. Sushil Kumar 11.1.1991 Interim certificate in the 31.3.2009 State Professional Training Mode of trade of D/Man Council of Utter Pradesh distance Admin.& Labour Department Utrakhand ITI Shrinagar Gharwaj in the year 31.3.09. 2. Tarsem Kumar 1.1.1994 Interim certificate in the trade of surveyor 4.8.2007 State Professional Training Council of Utter Pradesh Admin. & Labour Department Utrakhand ITI Saket, Maruth in -do- the year 4.8.2007 3. Surjeet Singh 1.1.1994 Interim certificate in the trade of surveyor 13.8.2007 State Professional Training Council of Utter Pradesh Admin. & Labour Department Utrakhand ITI Saket, Maruth in -do-the year 13.8.07 4. Sunil Kumar 1.1.1994 Interim certificate in the trade of S 31.3.2009 State Professional Training Council of Utter Pradesh Admin. -do-urveyor & Labour Department Utrakhand Shrinagar Gharwal in the year 31.3.09. 5. Shival Kumar 1.1.1995 10+2/ Certificate in the trade of Surveyor 13.8.2007 State Professional Training Council of Utter Pradesh Admin. & Labour Department Utrakhand ITI Saket, Maruth in -do- the year 13.8.2007 Respondent 6. Vijay Kumar 1.1.2000 Matric /ITI D/Man July 1987 Govt. I.T.I. Dehradun in the year Jul-87 Recognized 7. Kamal Singh 1.1.2000 Matric /ITI D/Man 7/1989 N.T.C. Baba Mangipa ITI Dehradun in the year 7/89 -do- 8. Ajay Kumar 1.1.2000 -do- 13.2.1990 State Professional Training Council of Utter Pradesh Admin. -do- & Labour Department Utrakhand ITI Babamungiya ITI in the year 13.2.90 9. Vijay Kumar 1.1.2000 Hr. Sec.II Certificate in 13.6.1987 Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Siksha -do- D/Man Sanshthan Bibhani in the year 13.6.87 10. Vinod Kumar 1.1.2000 Matric /ITI D/Man August Govt. of Punjab/ State Council -do- for Vocational Training in the 1985 year Aug. 85 11. Tej Singh 1.1.2001 Matric /ITI D/Man July, 1989 National Trade Certificate -do-Munshi Ram I.T.I. Kandhala Mujpharnagar in the year Jul-89 12. Murari Lal 1.1.2001 -do- 1989 Govt. of India Ministry of Labour National Council for Vocational -do- Training in the year 1989 13. Bhim Singh 1.1.2001 -do- 7/1987 N.T.C. Baba Mangipa ITI -do- Dehradun in the year 7/87 14. Bachhiter Singh 1.1.2001 BA/ITI/D/Man. 7/1989 N.T.C Baba Mangipa ITI Bhiuadi (Alwar) Raj in the year 7/89 -do- 15. Suresh Kumar 1.1.2001 10+1 Certificate in D/Man Jan./1987 National Trade Certificate Govt. of Punjab ITI Phagwara in the year Jan. 87 -do- 16. Praduman Kumar 1.1.2001 Matric/Certificate in D/Man July, 1989 National Trade Certificate Govt. of Punjab ITI Rishikesh Dehradun in the year Jul. 89 -do- 17. Pitamber 1.1.2001 Hr. Suresh Kumar 1.1.2001 10+1 Certificate in D/Man Jan./1987 National Trade Certificate Govt. of Punjab ITI Phagwara in the year Jan. 87 -do- 16. Praduman Kumar 1.1.2001 Matric/Certificate in D/Man July, 1989 National Trade Certificate Govt. of Punjab ITI Rishikesh Dehradun in the year Jul. 89 -do- 17. Pitamber 1.1.2001 Hr. Sec./Certificate in 7/1988 N.T.C ITI Rishikesh Dehradun -do- Dutt D/Man in the 7/88 18. Kartar Singh 10.4.2001 Matric/BA/ITI/D/Man Jul.1989 National Trade Certificate Babamungiya I.T.I. Mathura in the year Jul. 89 -do- 5. The petitioners thus admittedly are senior to the private respondents in the feeder category i.e., Work Inspector, however, the latter have acquired technical education well before that by the former. The tabulated information supra further discloses the name of the institution(s) from where the petitioners and the private respondents have acquired the technical education. As per information reflected in the last column of the table, while the petitioners have been shown to have acquired the technical qualification through “Distance Education Mode” against the names of private respondents such mode has been reflected as “recognized”. 6. As the record further discloses, the 1st and 2nd respondents in reply to the writ petition has tried to make distinction between the petitioners and the private respondents on two counts. Firstly, while the private respondents have acquired the technical education much before the petitioners and as such in terms of the judgment of this Court in S.S. Kutlehria and others versus State of H.P. and others 2010 (1) Shim. LC 513 are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, having already completed 8 years service in the feeder category i.e. Work Inspectors and secondly, the technical educational qualification acquired by the petitioners through distance education mode cannot be treated a qualification for appointment in Government job as per guidelines issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), being not approved by the Distance Education Council (DEC)-Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) or AICTE. 7. Before coming to the law laid down by this Court in S.S. Kutlehria’s case supra and also the guidelines issued by the AICTE, it is desirable to make reference to the reply filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents in this writ petition. 7. Before coming to the law laid down by this Court in S.S. Kutlehria’s case supra and also the guidelines issued by the AICTE, it is desirable to make reference to the reply filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents in this writ petition. The same reads as follows: ….it is respectfully submitted that in the respondent Department, admittedly a proposal was moved for making promotion to the category of JE(c) and Electrical JE from feeder category so as to fill the vacant posts in the tribal region for completion of targeted works lying incomplete for want of incumbents. But while perusing entire records it has been found that firstly an exercise needs to be made to the effect that out of 15% quota meant for promotional category, in 200 point roaster for the post of JE(c) as prescribed in the R&P Rules, the escort number of vacant posts to be filled from this feeder category i.e. Work Inspector with ITI certificate needs to be identified at the first instance. Accordingly, no DPC have been convened and is kept in abeyance till the finalization of these roaster points…….. ……..The petitioners belong to category of Work Inspector having ITI certificate course of total two years duration but have acquired this qualification during service from Distance Education mode through correspondence that too, without prior approval of competent authority between the period 2004 to 2008. ………All these petitioners have neither applied lave to gain higher education between the said period which duration for doing the same on regular basis is two years nor obtained prior permission of competent authority to gain such higher education while going this qualification which is Engineer-in-Chief or Govt. but obtained the same either from Executive Engineer or Superintending Engineer concerned. Hence, to avoid such situation it has also been decided that ill the clarification is not received from the above mentioned three autonomous bodies, in this regard and also till the courses offered by the said Institutions are not found recognized, no such diploma/degree/certificate be taken into consideration for promotional purposes…. 2. That as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shallender Dania’s case, this Hon’ble Court has also been pleased to direct the respondent department vide its common judgment dated 8.1.2010 so passed in CWP No. 1358/2008 titled S.S Kutlehria Vs. 2. That as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shallender Dania’s case, this Hon’ble Court has also been pleased to direct the respondent department vide its common judgment dated 8.1.2010 so passed in CWP No. 1358/2008 titled S.S Kutlehria Vs. State of H.P. As per this judgment, it has been directed that after gaining higher qualification, the incumbent who work in the feeder category for atleast 3 years only thereafter his case for promotion has to be considered but not from the date of seniority in the feeder category where he did not possess professional expertise as gained through said higher qualification on the basis of which he is gaining promotion. ….That petitioner have gained ITI course from Distance Education Mode from Uttar Pradesh private I.T.I without obtaining proper permission of competent authority, that too during the year 2005 to 2008 though they are senior in the category of Work Inspector from the private respondents. Few of the private respondents possess ITI certificates before joining the respondent Deptt. that too, by doing Regular Courses from the respective I.T.Is of two years period. The Government after the verdict in S.S. Kutlehria’s case has decided to implement the said judgment in letter and spirit and even review DPCs stands also convened for the category of Asstt. Engineers till date on 28.9.2010. The category of Junior Engineer and Work Inspector cannot be discriminated, if the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is Sahilender Danta case is to be followed, than it has to be followed in letter and spirit qua all the Engineering categories of respondent department. Thus based upon this principle, respondent Deptt. intends to effect all future promotions by applying said ratio for which all the necessary formalities as required before it shall be carried out by the respondent department in letter and spirit as also done in case of Graduate Junior Engineers (Civil) while making promotions to the category of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) by the respondent Deptt. In the light of these submissions, the present petition deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice. …….However, no D.P.C. in the category of Work Inspector for promotion as Junior Engineer (Civil) has been convened as alleged by the petitioners till date. Engineers (Civil) by the respondent Deptt. In the light of these submissions, the present petition deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice. …….However, no D.P.C. in the category of Work Inspector for promotion as Junior Engineer (Civil) has been convened as alleged by the petitioners till date. But the documents to process the matter of promotion have been merely called for from field offices and as per detailed position as stands submitted in preliminary submission No.1 & 2 the same is now not likely to be convened till either the vacant posts as per roster point are identified or clarification is received from higher Technical Body. …..The petitioners have acquired the requisite technical qualification much later than that of the private respondents that is why the record of the senior persons acquiring requisite technical qualification was also called from the concerned Superintending Engineers/ Executive Engineers. It is, however, clarified that no promotion has been done in the category of the Work Inspector till date as alleged by the petitioners for the reasons that firstly eligibility cum seniority list as per said law has to be framed and also certificate requires verification. 8. The respondents No. 3 to 9 and 11, 12 & 14 have also contested the writ petition though by filing separate reply, however, on the same grounds, as raised by the 1st and 2nd respondents in reply to the writ petition filed on their behalf. Respondent No. 15 has also filed separate reply. 9. In view of the specific stand in reply filed to the writ petition on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 that unless and until the eligibility is fixed in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in Shailendra Dania and others versus S.P. Dubey and others, (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 535 and that of this Court in S.S. Kutlehria’s supra, and the seniority list of eligible candidates is accordingly prepared, no promotion from amongst the category of the petitioners and private respondents will be made, the order during the course of arguments in this writ petition came to be passed on 20.7.2012 reads as follows: “Heard for sometime. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in reply to CWP No. 4379 of 2010 that in near future there is no intention to hold the meeting of the DPC whereas in CWP No. 1359 of 2012 that the DPC meeting could not be convened in view of the interim order passed by this Court in CWP No. 4379 of 2010, aforesaid, let some officer well conversant with the facts of these cases be remain present in person on the next date to assist the Court.” 10. The order passed on the next date i.e. 23.7.2012, being relevant here is reproduced as under: The promotion to the post(s) of J.E (Civil) from the category(s) of the petitioners and the private respondents seems to have been kept in abeyance for want of identification of vacancies as per quota prescribed under the Rules for their category and also the clarification as to whether the institution(s) from where the petitioners have undergone the ITI diploma are recognized by the AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) and the certificates they issued are acceptable or not. The quota meant for the category of the petitioners and private respondents has to be identified by the respondent-State and even the clarification qua the institution from where the petitioners have acquired the essential qualification is also required to be obtained by the respondent-State. The genuineness and authenticity of the certificates/diplomas furnished by the petitioners has also to be ascertained by the respondent-State. Let the position in this behalf be explained in supplementary affidavit, which may be filed on or before the next date of hearing.” 11. The order so passed has led to filing the supplementary affidavit dated 6.9.2012. The relevant portion thereof reads as follows: 4. That in compliance to the above directions of this Hon’ble High Court it is respectfully submitted that as per the provisions of amended R&P Rules dated 24-01-2007 annexure R-2 to the reply, for the purpose of promotion as Junior Engineer(C) 200 roster point is followed and the roster point of category of petitioner is as under:- “2.5% i.e. point number 20,40,80,160 & 200 for Work Inspector having ITI course of 2 years in the trade of Surveyor/Draughtsman (Civil) from the recognized Institute with alteast 8 years of service. 4% i.e. point number 45,61,90,125,135, 170, 175 & 195 for Work Inspectors who are matriculates or its equivalent qualification with atleast 15 years regular service and has completed successfully the prescribed Deptt. training course of 6 months. Note: “The roster will be rotated after every 200 point till the representation of all categories is achieved by the given percentage. Thereafter the post is to be filled up from the category, which vacates the post.” 12. Besides letter dated September 27, 2010 Annexure R-1 addressed to the 2nd respondent by the Director (PC) AICTE, Delhi and the service particulars Annexure R-2 of the petitioners and the private respondents have also been annexed to the supplementary affidavit to reiterate its case that the technical education acquired by the petitioners through distance education mode is from un-recognized institution. 13. It is in this backdrop, the contentions raised on both sides during the course of arguments have to be considered. However, before that it is desirable to take note of relevant provisions under the Rules for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) from amongst the category of the petitioners and the private respondents. iv) 2.5% from amongst Work Inspectors having ITI certificate course of atleast two years duration in the trade of Surveyor/Draughtsmanship (Civil) or its equivalent from a recognized ITI/Institute duly recognized by the Central/State Government with atleast 8 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service, if any, in the grade; 14. The 200 point roster in the category of the petitioners and private respondents to the extent of their quota i.e. 2.5% below proviso 2(v) of Rule 10(b) also reads as follows: “2.5% i.e. point number 20,40,80,160 & 200 for Work Inspector having ITI course of 2 years in the trade of Surveyor/Draughtsman (Civil) from the recognized Institute with atleast 8 years of service.” 15. It is seen from the Rules ibid that from amongst the category of the petitioners and private respondents, 2.5% posts have to be filled up by promotion as per their turn in 200 point roster from amongst the Work Inspectors having ITI certificates of atleast 2 years duration in the trade of Surveyor/Draughtsman (Civil) from a recognized ITI/Institute duly recognized by the State/Central Government with alteast 8 years regular service or regular combined adhoc service in the grade. 16. 16. On behalf of the respondent-State, reliance has been placed on S.S.Kutlehria’s case, cited supra and on the ratio of this judgment, it has been argued that promotion from amongst the category of the petitioners to the post of Junior Engineer will only be made on determining the eligibility criteria and finalization of seniority list of the eligible candidates. 17. Learned counsel representing the petitioners, however, has disputed the case so set up by the respondents on two counts, firstly, the Rules for the purpose of Assistant Engineer in S.S.Kutlehria’s case were different from the one in the present case and secondly, the petitioners were not party in that case, hence the judgment cannot be applied in this case. 18. True it is that as per Rules under consideration before this Court in S.S.Kutlehria versus State of H.P., three years regular or adhoc service for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is to be counted from the date of appointment of the Graduate Junior Engineer and from the date of passing Sections A & B of AMIE Examination by in-service Junior Engineer. Meaning thereby that in the case of in-service Junior Engineers, service is to be counted from the date of acquiring qualification that is AMIE and not from the date of their appointment as Diploma Holder Junior Engineers. However, no such requirement is yet provided under the Rules for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer(Civil) from amongst the category of the petitioners. On this score, learned counsel representing the petitioners is justified in claiming that this judgment is not applicable in this case. However, no promotion to the post in question has been made for the time being and there is no proposal to promote any one from this category without determining the eligibility criteria and seniority of eligible candidates in terms of the law laid down in this judgment. The petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved at this stage in any manner whatsoever. No doubt, as per law laid down by the Apex Court in N. Suresh Nathan and another versus Union of India and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 564, the well established practice cannot be abruptly changed without making any amendment in the service Rules. The petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved at this stage in any manner whatsoever. No doubt, as per law laid down by the Apex Court in N. Suresh Nathan and another versus Union of India and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 564, the well established practice cannot be abruptly changed without making any amendment in the service Rules. However, when the respondents have decided not to make any promotion to the post in question hence it is legitimately expected from the respondent-State not to make any promotion without fixing eligibility criteria, as per the law laid down by this Court in S.S.Kutlehria’s case, cited supra. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment supra has no application in this case, at this stage. am afraid no contention that the petitioners have not been heard, hence the judgment is not applicable can legally be made nor entertained for the reason that the law laid down by this Court is binding on each and every one, whether he is a party before it or not. 19. Whether any post available to be filled up from amongst the category of the petitioners and private respondents by way of promotion is available or not is again a million dollar question for the reason that information Annexure R-3 to an application registered as CMP No. 1585 of 2011 filed with a prayer for early hearing of the writ petition reveals that from amongst the category of the petitioners and private respondents, 11 posts have already been filled up in excess. Although, on which date the status of the vacancy was as such is not there in Annexure R-3, however, in view of the date of drafting of the application aforesaid being 4.5.2011, such position can be said to be of as on 31.4.2011. Any how, the vacancy, if available for being filled up from amongst the category of the petitioners, it is legitimately expected from the respondent-State that the same will be filled up in accordance with law. 20. It is significant to note that irrespective of there being no provision under the Rules that 8 years qualifying service is to be counted from the date of acquiring higher qualification, the judgment of this Court in S.S.Kutlehria’s case is attracted in the present case also. 20. It is significant to note that irrespective of there being no provision under the Rules that 8 years qualifying service is to be counted from the date of acquiring higher qualification, the judgment of this Court in S.S.Kutlehria’s case is attracted in the present case also. No doubt, the implementation thereof in the case of the petitioners is subject to prescribing the eligibility criteria accordingly in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and fixing the seniority of eligible candidates including the petitioners accordingly by affording them due opportunity of being heard. It is significant to note that the petitioners who are five in number, ACRs of three of them i.e. Sushil Kumar, petitioner No. 1, Surjeet Singh, petitioner No. 3 and Sunil Kumar, petitioner No. 4 stands already furnished to the office of 2nd respondent vide letter dated 15.9.2012 produced by the petitioners themselves alongwith their reply to the supplementary affidavit filed in this Court on 26.9.2012. Meaning thereby that out of five petitioners, three of them are also under consideration for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The respondent-State, a model employer is expected to deal with the case of the remaining two petitioners also in accordance with law and as such their apprehension that they will be ignored in the matter of promotion is not only baseless but misconceived also. 21. This Court is not in agreement with the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioners that point in issue is covered in their favour by the judgment of Apex Court in 1993 (Suppl.) 2 Supreme Court Cases 419 titled M.B. Joshi versus Satish and that the judgment of this Court in S.S.Kutlehria versus State of H.P. is not applicable in their case for the reason that a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Shalinder Dania’s case, cited supra while discussing the case law up to date has concluded that three years qualifying service for the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, in the case of serving Diploma Holder has to be counted from the date of obtaining Degree in Engineering by them and not from the date of their appointment in the grade. Similar is the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in N. Suresh Nathan and others versus Union of India (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 692, in which M.B.Joshi’s case, cited supra has also been discussed. Similar is the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in N. Suresh Nathan and others versus Union of India (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 692, in which M.B.Joshi’s case, cited supra has also been discussed. The Apex Court has again held in State of M.P. and another versus Dharam Bir (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 165 that experience gained by a person on account of his working on a post for over a decade cannot be equated with the educational qualification prescribed for promotion to the higher post. It is again held by the Apex Court in R. Prabha Devi and others versus Government of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms and others, (1988) 2 Supreme Court Cases 233 that seniority is not a substitute for eligibility. Also that seniority has only to be seen of the eligible candidates and not viz-a-viz those who are not eligible. Similar is the view of the matter taken by the Apex Court in Smitha Johny versus Josny Varghese and others, (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 414. Our own High Court in S.S. Kutlehria’s case, cited supra after taking note of the entire case law, on the issue and placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shailnder Dania’s case has held as under”- 28. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the Rule in this case is akin to the Rules in Shalendra Dania’s case. The Rules provide two categories from which promotions can be made i.e. Graduate Junior Engineers as well as Diploma-Holder Junior Engineers who have obtained the degree of graduation i.e. AMIE during service. The Rules provide an equal experience of 3 years in both cases. This case is therefore, squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Shalendra Dania’s case and only the service rendered by the Diploma-Holder Engineers after having passed both parts of AMIE can be taken into consideration for reckoning 3 years experience.” 22. The law so laid down is thus applicable in the present case also, no doubt, subject to providing eligibility criteria accordingly in the Rules and determination of seniority etc. of eligible candidates in accordance with law. 23. The petitioners are not justified in dictating terms and seeking promotion on the basis of their length of service in the grade. The law so laid down is thus applicable in the present case also, no doubt, subject to providing eligibility criteria accordingly in the Rules and determination of seniority etc. of eligible candidates in accordance with law. 23. The petitioners are not justified in dictating terms and seeking promotion on the basis of their length of service in the grade. No doubt, such practice was being followed by the respondent-State, however, may be prior to the law laid down by this Court in S.S. Kutlehria versus State of H.P., placing reliance on Shalendra Dania’s case. S.S. Kutlehria’s case was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 8.1.2010, whereas, the promotions vide Annexure P-5 to the writ petition and Annexure PR-D to the reply of the petitioners to the supplementary affidavit were made purely on the basis of the seniority from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of acquiring higher education, being dated 12.11.2009 and 23/24.03.2007 respectively are of well before the date of judgment in S.S. Kutlehria’s case supra. No promotion has been made by the respondent-State from this category after this judgment may be on account of having taken a decision to implement the same in the matter of promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) also after prescribing the eligibility criteria in the Rules. The respondent-State is competent to do so. I am taking help of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration through the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh versus Usha Kheterpal Waie and others 2011(9) Supreme Court Cases 645 which provide that the appointing authority is alone to prescribe qualification/criteria for a post and the Tribunal/Court should not take place of the appointing authority. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under:- “It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. (see J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. (see J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P and P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General.) In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of Ph.D is unreasonable. 24. In such a situation, in case any such eligibility criteria prescribing the qualifying service on acquiring the higher qualification is fixed by the respondent-State on the basis of law laid down by the Apex Court and also this Court and the promotion is made on the basis of the said criteria, no doubt, by determining the seniority of eligible candidates in accordance with law, the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved in any manner whatsoever, as the criteria, if so fixed, will not eliminate their claim for promotion but they will also be considered by taking their respective date of acquiring higher qualification for the purpose of counting of requisite length of service. 25. As noticed supra, the issue of technical qualification acquired by the petitioners not from the recognized/affiliated institutions has also been raised on behalf of the respondent-State as well as private respondents. Such plea has been raised on the basis of a letter dated September 27, 2010, Annexure R-1 to the supplementary affidavit. This document, no doubt, suggests that the qualification acquired by the Distance Education Mode is not recognized for the purpose of employment to the posts and services under the Central Government, provided, the same have been approved by Distance Education Council(DEC)-Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), however, this clarification, pertains qua the status of B.E.Degree in Engineering passed through Distance Education Mode from Vinayaka Mission University, Salem Tamil Nadu sought by the 2nd respondent from the AICTE. This letter further clarify that Distance Education Mode at the level of Diploma Holders, bachelors and Master’s Degree in the field of Engineering, Technology etc. etc. is not recognized for the purpose of employment. Here we are not concerned either with the Diploma or the B.Tech. Degree or Master’s Degree in Engineering etc. etc., but only with the National Trade Certificate, which are issued by the Industrial Training Institutes, duly recognized by the National Council for Vocational Training. etc. is not recognized for the purpose of employment. Here we are not concerned either with the Diploma or the B.Tech. Degree or Master’s Degree in Engineering etc. etc., but only with the National Trade Certificate, which are issued by the Industrial Training Institutes, duly recognized by the National Council for Vocational Training. The tabulated information supra reveals that all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 have acquired certificates in the trade of Surveyors, whereas, by the petitioner No. 1 in the trade of Draughtsman from the Government Institution situated at Uttrakhand/Uttar Pradesh. It is not the case of the respondents that the said Institutions are not recognized one nor affiliated with the NCVT/AICTE. The verification of the certificates issued to the petitioners and others persons from same institution i.e. Government ITI, Meerut sought by the respondents through Director, Technical Education, Sundernagar vide Annexure PR-A reveals that such certificates are valid and the institution(s) are affiliated with NCVT (Annexure PR-C). Otherwise also, out of five petitioners, three are under consideration as their ACRs have also been asked for, as is apparent from Annexure PR-H to the supplementary affidavit. In such a situation, the objection qua the validity of the certificate produced by the petitioners and the recognition/affiliation of the institutions from where they passed the course in the trade of Surveyor/Draughtsman (Civil) is highly doubtful. Another objection that the petitioners had not obtained prior approval of the competent authority for undergoing these courses through Distance Education Mode is again without any substance, for the reason that the documents Annexure PR-G (Colly.) to the reply to the supplementary affidavit reveals that all the petitioners were granted permission, no doubt by the Superintending Engineer/Executive Engineer and not by the Engineer-in-Chief, allegedly a competent authority to accord such permission. The petitioners, however, cannot be blamed on this score for the reason that they had sought the permission and the same has been granted to them. It is immaterial that authority(s) which has accorded the approval was competent or not. This is an internal matter in between the respondents. This Court thus feel that respondent-State shall consider this aspect of the matter in the light of the material available on record and also the above observations in accordance with law. 26. It is immaterial that authority(s) which has accorded the approval was competent or not. This is an internal matter in between the respondents. This Court thus feel that respondent-State shall consider this aspect of the matter in the light of the material available on record and also the above observations in accordance with law. 26. The net result of the discussion hereinabove is that the petitioners at this stage cannot be said to be aggrieved in any manner whatsoever, as the respondent-State has yet to consider their case in accordance with law for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer(Civil). They cannot be said to be aggrieved in any manner whatsoever if the respondents have asked for the ACRs and Vigilance Clearance Certificates of the persons eligible in the feeder category vide impugned order, Annexure P-6 for considering them to promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), as no promotion from the category of the petitioners has been made to the post of Junior Engineer(Civil) after the judgment of this Court in S.S. Kutlaria’s case. The petitioners are not justified in claiming that they have been discriminated against the similarly situated persons and not considered for promotion to the post in question. 27. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of finally, so also the pending application(s), if any. The interim order shall stand vacated.