ORDER 1. The petitioners, Sub-Engineers, in this writ petition have ventilated their grievance that while facilitating promotion to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer, the Power Distribution Company ('the respondent Company', for brevity) reckoned the entire length of service of the promotees from the initial appointment rather than from the date when those employees were borne in the feeder category, i.e., Sub Engineers. In other words, by taking the entire length of service of those employees who were appointed sub-engineers by transfer, the respondents made the direct recruitees lose out on account of alleged lack of seniority, though they have been holding the post of Sub Engineers as direct recruitees for a longer period than those promotees who had been appointed by transfer. The facts in brief are that all the petitioners, possessing Engineering Diplomas in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (DEEE), were appointed Sub Engineers on different dates between 2000 and 2004. Insofar as the petitioners' career prospects are concerned, their employer, the respondent Company, has two types of services: Engineering and Non-engineering. As per the service regulations of the 1st respondent Company, all non-engineering staff can enter into engineering service only after acquiring a Diploma in Engineering. In course of time, the 2nd respondent Company, through a memo dated 04.10.2008, asked its Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers to furnish service particulars of Sub Engineers who are working under their control having completed eight years of service with a view to considering them for further promotion to the post of Additional Assistant Engineers. Though the names of the persons who were appointed Sub Engineers in 2005 and 2006 were considered, the petitioners were left out, despite their appointment prior to that time. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court, having failed to persuade the authorities to consider their cases. 2. Sri D.V. Seetha Rama Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioners, has submitted that the post of Sub Engineer is the feeder category to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer. Insofar as the post of Sub-Engineer is concerned, it has got two modes of recruitment. Elaborating further, the learned Senior Counsel has stated that one mode is by way of direct recruitment and another is recruitment by transfer. Those who are working in non-engineering category, on acquiring the necessary qualification with requisite experience, could as well be appointed Sub-Engineers by transfer. Elaborating further, the learned Senior Counsel has stated that one mode is by way of direct recruitment and another is recruitment by transfer. Those who are working in non-engineering category, on acquiring the necessary qualification with requisite experience, could as well be appointed Sub-Engineers by transfer. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that once a person is borne in the cadre of Sub-Engineer either by way of direct recruitment or by way of appointment by transfer, the cadre of Sub-Engineer as a whole becomes one single homogenous cadre. According to the learned Senior Counsel, any particular in-service candidate, once appointed sub-engineer on his acquiring the necessary qualifications while working in non-engineering category, would lose his whatever distinct identity and he would be part of the same common cadre of sub-engineer comprising direct recruitees and appointees by transfer. Accordingly, it is manifestly illegal, contended the learned Senior Counsel, to take into account the service of those employees who were appointed by transfer from the date of their initial appointment rather than from the date of their actual appointment to the feeder category. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on P. Sudhakar Rao and Others vs. U. Govinda Rao and Others, 2013 (5) ALT 17 (SC): 2013 (6) SCJ 10: (2013) 8 SCC 693 . 3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Company has strenuously contested the claim of the petitioners and has further justified the promotion provided to the respondents 5 to 10, who in fact were initially appointed Sub-Engineers by transfer on their acquiring the minimum qualification in the lower non-engineering category. The learned Standing Counsel has elaborated on the service regulations governing the appointment and promotions of the employees of the respondent Company and has further stated that the unofficial respondents joined in service in or about 1994, whereas the petitioners joined service only after 2000. According to the learned Standing Counsel the respondent Company has duly taken into account the entire length of service of the prospective promotees, inasmuch as those people have already put in sufficient service in the respondent Company working at different levels. The learned Standing Counsel has stated that the acquisition of qualification by the unofficial respondents at a subsequent point of time to be eligible to the post of Sub-Engineers On transfer would not obliterate their past service. The learned Standing Counsel has stated that the acquisition of qualification by the unofficial respondents at a subsequent point of time to be eligible to the post of Sub-Engineers On transfer would not obliterate their past service. Adverting to the decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that it does not have any application to the facts of the present case. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Company, apart from perusing the record. 5. Since the facts are not in dispute, the only issue that falls for consideration is: Whether the entire length of service from the initial appointment in whichever cadre, or only the length of service in the feeder category alone, shall be reckoned for the purpose of effecting promotions to the next higher cadre? 6. Before addressing the issue, it may be necessary to refer to the hierarchal structure of the employees in the 2nd respondent Company, which is governed by the service regulations of the 1st respondent Corporation. As adverted to above, the respondent Company has two types of services, viz., Engineering service and Non-engineering service. The non-engineering services are cumulatively referred to as Operation and Maintenance (O & M), which include the field of construction as well. Insofar as engineering posts are concerned, the hierarchy is as follows: Sub Engineer. Additional Assistant Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Assistant Additional Engineer, Divisional Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer. Whereas the non-engineering posts (OM) are concerned, they comprise hierarchically: Attender, Junior Lineman, Assistant Lineman, Lineman, Line Inspector, Senior Line Inspector of Grades-I, II, III, VI and Foreman. 7. It can be observed that as per the service regulations of the respondent Company, non-engineering staff can enter into engineering service only after acquiring a Diploma in Engineering. For the post of Sub-Engineer, the mode of recruitment is two fold: Direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer. For an in-service candidate in the non-engineering service to be appointed by transfer, he must have acquired Engineering Diploma, apart from putting in a minimum continuous service of five years. It is to be specifically observed that in the service regulations a note has been appended detailing in what manner the past service of those employees in non-engineering division should be calculated on his acquiring the Engineering qualification. It is to be specifically observed that in the service regulations a note has been appended detailing in what manner the past service of those employees in non-engineering division should be calculated on his acquiring the Engineering qualification. It is profitable to extract the said note, which is as follows: "Non-diploma candidates who have acquired diploma qualification in Elecl./Mechl./ Civil/Telecom. Engineering while in service shall be allowed 50% of the continuous service rendered prior to acquiring such diploma qualification, except the service rendered as NMR worker subject to a maximum of 4 years for the purpose of computing the total prescribed service." 8. Insofar as the promotional post of Additional Assistant Engineer in engineering division is concerned, the appointment shall be made from among the following categories of employees: "(i) Draughtsmen, Tracers, Sub-Overseers, Asst. Supervisors having LEE Diploma qualification and a minimum continuous service of ten years acquiring the LEE Diploma qualification in any post under the Board. (ii) Employees working in O & M Establishment and Construction staff establishment having LEE diploma qualification and who have put in a minimum continuous service of eight years acquiring the LEE diploma qualification in any post under the Board excluding the service if any rendered as Nominal Muster Roll Worker. Note : For the computation of eight years of service half the continuous service other than the service as nominal muster roll worker rendered prior to acquisition of LEE diploma qualification subject to a maximum of four years shall be taken into account for all categories." 9. From the record, it is evident that in 2008, the 2nd respondent Company sought from its Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers, who are in-charge of Operational Zones or Circles to furnish information in respect of those Sub-Engineers working under their control having completed eight years of service as on 31.07.2008 for the purpose of considering their cases for appointment as Additional Assistant Engineers. Later once again through another memo at the end of the year 2008 one more list of eligible candidates had been called for by the 2nd respondent Company. Taking the entire length of service of the non-engineering staff, who later were appointed Sub Engineers by transfer, the officials of the 2nd respondent Company recommended the names of the respondents 5 to 10. Taking the entire length of service of the non-engineering staff, who later were appointed Sub Engineers by transfer, the officials of the 2nd respondent Company recommended the names of the respondents 5 to 10. The names of the petitioners have not been recommended on the premise that they are not seniors to those who had a longer length of service reckoned from their initial appointment. Indeed, the respondents 5 to 10 have been appointed on account of the fact that they had longer length of service from the date of their initial appointment, though juniors to the petitioners in the immediate feeder category of Sub-Engineers. 10. On the issue of seniority, the respective counsel for both the parties have made elaborate submissions, touching upon the staffing pattern, the promotional avenues, as well as the regulations governing the promotions in the 2nd respondent Company. Any discussion on all these aspects has been obviated in view of a definitive pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Sudhakar Rao (supra) concerning the reckoning of length of service in the feeder category between direct recruitees and those who have been recruited by transfer. 11. The issue that has fallen for consideration in the said judgment of a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is whether on appointment of a Junior Engineer, weightage of service given to a supervisor can be taken into account for fixing his seniority as a Junior Engineer, thereby effectively re-fixing the seniority with retrospective effect. 12. Interestingly, the Rule 4 of the A.P. Engineering Service Rules, which fell for consideration in P. Sudhakar Rao (supra) has an identical note appended to it as has been extracted above while referring to the recruitment by transfer of non-engineering candidates to the post of Sub-Engineer or Additional Assistant Engineer. 13. Indeed, placing reliance on Keshav Shankar Joshi vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 272, their Lordships in P. Sudhakar Rao (supra) have observed that injustice ought not to have been done to one set of employees in order to do justice to another set. After surveying the entire case law obtaining on the aspect of retroactive seniority, it has eventually been held: "The facts of the appeals before us show that at least some of the Supervisors were given retrospective seniority on the date when they were not even eligible for appointment as Junior Engineers. After surveying the entire case law obtaining on the aspect of retroactive seniority, it has eventually been held: "The facts of the appeals before us show that at least some of the Supervisors were given retrospective seniority on the date when they were not even eligible for appointment as Junior Engineers. The precedents referred to above show that this is impermissible. In addition as pointed out by the High Court, there is no indication of the vacancy position, that is, whether the Supervisors could be adjusted in the grade of Junior Engineers from the date on which they were given notional retrospective seniority. There is also no indication whether the quota of vacancies for Supervisors was adhered to as on the date on which they were given notional retrospective seniority. The case law suggests that this is an important factor to be considered. Finally, it is quite clear that the grant of retrospective seniority to the Supervisors has adversely impacted on the promotion chances of the Junior Engineers by bringing them down in seniority. This too is impermissible. From the various decisions referred to and from the facts of the case, it is clear that to pass the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution, the seniority of the Supervisors should be reckoned only from the date on which they satisfied all the real and objective procedural requirements of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules and the Law laid down by this Court. This has not happened in the present appeals creating a situation of unreasonableness and unfairness." 14. From the above definitive pronouncement, the issue is no longer res Integra and on the contrary too well settled to be caviled about. In some and substance, the service of employees, who were appointed in the posts of Sub-Engineer by transfer, even before they were borne into the cadre Sub Engineer, should not have been taken into account. In other words, once by whatever means or mode of recruitment a person is brought into a particular cadre, the said cadre becomes, as has been rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, one homogeneous cadre admitting of no deviation or differentiation, much less sub-classification within the same cadre. Any adoption of such method will surely fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground of arbitrary classification without justification. 15. Any adoption of such method will surely fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground of arbitrary classification without justification. 15. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the cases of the Sub-Engineers, including the petitioners, ought to have been considered, notwithstanding the different modes of recruitment, only by taking into the account the service rendered by those employees in the said feeder category alone for determining their eligibility to the promotional post of Additional Assistant Engineer, as has been held in P. Sudhakar Rao (supra). Accordingly, there shall be a mandamus to the 2nd respondent Company to promote the petitioners with retrospective effect from the date of their eligibility subject to the vacancy as on that date and thereby fixing their respective seniorities vis-a-vis those candidates, including the respondents 5 to 10, who have been promoted, though they are juniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Sub Engineers. 16. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of the Court that out of 11 petitioners, most of them have been promoted pending the writ petition except petitioners 7, 9 and 10. Thus, the direction shall be to the effect that the petitioners 7, 9 and 10 shall be promoted and the seniority of all the petitioners shall be fixed in the manner indicated above. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. Petition allowed.