JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. The claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of DVR MT Grade-I has been rejected by Respondent No. 2 vide Order No. 12621.AR/SAMPARK/DGBR/EG2 dated 15.01.2002 Same is sought to be quashed with a further prayer to direct respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of DVR MT Grade-I retrospectively from the date his junior Mr. Baljit Singh has been promoted. 2. Promotional scheme for staff car drivers has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law, Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Railways by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training). Scheme has been issued vide OM No. 220336/1/92. Estt (D) dated 30.11.1993 The nomenclature of the posts in the various skills is shown therein. Same is quoted:- Sl. No. Scale Nomenclature 1. Rs. 950-1500 Staff Car Driver Ordinary Grade 2. Rs. 1200-1800 Staff Car Driver Grade II 3. Rs. 1320-2040 Staff Car Driver Grade I 3. The eligibility criteria is prescribed under Para - 2.3 of the scheme which is quoted hereunder:- Grade Eligibility Period Grade Ordinary Grade (Rs. 950-1500) Basic Grade Ordinary Grade (Rs. 950-1500) Grade II of Staff Car Driver (RS. 1200-1800) 9 Years of Regular service in the ordinary Grade Grade II of Staff Car Driver (RS. 1200-1800) Grade I of Staff Car Driver (Rs. 1320-2040) 6 Years of regular service in Grade II of Staff Car Drivers. Grade I of Staff Car Driver (Rs. 1320-2040) 4. The method of appointment is prescribed in Para 2.4 which is quoted hereunder: “2.4 The method of appointment to the posts in Grade II and Grade I of Staff Car drivers will be by promotion on Non-selection (Seniority-cum-Fitness) basis and will be further subject to passing of a Trade Test of appropriate standard, contained in the Annexure I to this O.M” 5. Para 3 of the said scheme is also relevant to be quoted: “3. INITIAL APPOINTMENT While making initial appointment to the above newly created scales, each Ministry/Department will screen the list of Staff Car Drivers, who have rendered not less than 15 years of service, may be considered for appointment to posts in Grade I direct to the extent of availability of vacancies in that grade subject to being found fit by DPC on the basis of Seniority-cum-Fitness and passing of Trade Test. In the same manner, Staff Car Drivers, who have rendered not less than 9 years service (including those who could not be accommodated in Grade I in spite of putting in 15 years of service for want of vacancies), may be considered for appointment to Grade II by following the same eligibility and other criteria prescribed for appointment to these posts.” 6. Syllabus for appointment to Grade II of Staff Car Drivers is prescribed which is quoted hereunder: SYLLABUS 1. Must be able to read English numerals and figures. 2. Must have good knowledge of traffic regulation. 3. Must be able to locate faults and carry out minor running repairs. 4. Must be able to change wheels and correctly inflate tyres. TEST Practical test based on the above. 7. Syllabus for appointment to Grade I of Staff Car Drivers is as under: SYLLABUS 1. Must be able to read English Numerals and figures. 2. Must have a thorough knowledge of traffic regulation. 3. Must have good knowledge of petrol and Diesel Engine working and be able to locate faults and rectify minor running defects. 4. Must be able to clear carburettor, plug, etc. TEST Practical test based on the above. 8. Petitioner admittedly has been appointed as DVR MT on 21.08.1982 in GREF whereas Respondent No. 5 Baljit Singh has also been appointed as DVR MT on 01.09.1982 who is admittedly junior to the petitioner. Both of them have rendered 15 years of service. So were eligible for promotion directly to DVR MT Grade-I subject to the passing of practical test. Both have appeared for the requisite practical test. Respondent No. 5 has been promoted to the post of DVR MT Grade-I whereas petitioner has been promoted to the post of DVR MT Grade II. 9. Petitioner refused to accept the promotion to DVR MT Grade II on the ground that his junior Respondent No. 5 Baljit Singh has been promoted to the post of DVR MT Grade-I. When his representation was not acceded to, he filed SWP No. 2240/2001 projecting his grievance therein to the effect that after completing 15 years of regular service, he is entitled to promotion as DVR MT Grade-I the way Respondent No. 5 Baljit Singh has been given the benefit. The counsel who had appeared in that petition on behalf of Union of India-Addl. The counsel who had appeared in that petition on behalf of Union of India-Addl. CGSC had submitted that the claim of the petitioner would be taken note of and decision in accordance with law would be taken within a period of four months. On the said stand taken by the learned CGSC, the petition was admitted and disposed of so as to allow respondents to take the decision. 10. In compliance of the said judgment, the impugned order dated 15.01.2002 has been issued by Respondent No. 2 wherein it has been mentioned that Government granted one time sanction vide Letter (DOPT) OM No. 220336/1/92. Estt (D) dated 30.11.1993 and BRDB letter No. F.144(8)/89-pers/12803.AMDT/DGBR/EG2 dated 30.08.1994 whereunder DVR MT Ord Grade were to be promoted to DVR MT Grade-I provided subject to 15 years experience. DVR MT Ord Grade would also be considered for next grade of DVR MT Grade-II. It is further mentioned that the petitioner appeared for trade test on 02.03.1998 for promotion to DVR MT Grade-II and declared successful, as such was offered promotion vide promotion-cum-posting Order No. 944.GP-II/MTD/DPC/POS dated 01.09.1998 The aforesaid one time sanction was not extended to subsequent DPCs. 11. The petitioner having not appeared in the test for promotion to the DVR MT Grade - I and having appeared in the Trade Test for promotion of DVR MT Grade-II, forfeited his claim for promotion to DVR MT Grade-I. It is also observed in the order that the petitioner will be eligible for the promotion to the DVR MT Grade-I after he rendered continuous service of six years in the DVR MT Grade-II subject to passing trade test as stipulated in Government Order above referred. 12. According to petitioner, he had thrice appeared for the test and qualified. In addition thereto, he has placed on record a document shown to have been signed by Major Ninan Joseph which reveals that the petitioner in the year 1997 had appeared for the test of DVR MT Grade-I and is shown to have obtained 97 per cent of marks in oral test and 98 per cent of marks in practical test. In order dated 27.11.2015 of this Court, said position was taken note of but on perusal of the original record, the said document signed by Major Ninan Joseph was not available. In order dated 27.11.2015 of this Court, said position was taken note of but on perusal of the original record, the said document signed by Major Ninan Joseph was not available. The learned CGSC sought time to ascertain and to report as to whether the said document annexed with the petition at Page No. 14 is actually signed by Major Ninan Joseph or it is a created document. The respondents have failed to respond. Matter as such was heard. 13. The position of the petitioner having rendered more than 15 years of service, now by more than 16 years of service and being senior to Respondent No. 5 Baljit Singh is not denied. Both petitioner and respondent No. 5 have qualified the test. The only stand of the respondents is that he had appeared for the test of DVR MT Grade-II instead of DVR MT Grade-I whereas respondent No. 5 had appeared for the test of DVR MT Grade-I as referred to above. 14. The said stand of the respondents is exposed because the position of Trade Test Sheet signed by Major Ninan Joseph which is page 14 of the petition has remained to be controverted. The Trade Test Sheets reveals that the petitioner had obtained 97% marks in the oral test and 98% marks in practical test and also reveals that the petitioner had appeared for the Trade Test DVR MT-I. 15. The syllabus for both Grade-I and Grade-II almost is same. Even if contention of the respondents is taken correct that the petitioner had appeared for the test of DVR MT Grade-II still that would be a simple technicality in substance both petitioner and respondent No. 5 stood on the same footing. Syllabus for the test was almost same. There could be no reason for denying the similar benefit to the petitioner at par with respondent No. 5 when respondent No. 5 is admittedly junior. 16. The said position is also supported by a communication dated 14.10.1999 signed by Lt. Col. K.L Sharma, Chief Records Officer, GREF Records, Dighi Camp, Pune to Major Ninan Joseph, Camp Comdt mentioning therein amongst other things that the trade test sheets of the petitioner for DVR MT Grade-I were forwarded to GREF Records vide HQ letter No. 12022.DPC/134.EI camp dated 08.09.1999 but a copy of the same has been received back without any covering letter. Same is sent back. Please help. Same is sent back. Please help. Case of the petitioner must be considered. It is also mentioned in the application “Earlier due to some misinterpretation/clerical error a lapse had occurred by not sending the TT Sheet for MT Grade-I when you have asked for”. Finally a request has been made for considering the case of the petitioner favourably so as to allow him to become DVR MT Grade-I. 17. In the light of the afore-stated circumstances, the case of the petitioner being a hard and deserving one, same without any basis had been hook-winked. Resultantly, right of the petitioner for being promoted to DVR MT Grade-I has been negated. 18. Petitioner unnecessarily has been dragged into litigation. The issue was such which could have been settled by the respondents at their own level. When petitioner and respondent No. 5 except for seniority are on equal footing, what could be the reason for denying the promotion to the petitioner as against the post of DVR MT Grade-I that too when same benefit has been given to respondent No. 5 Baljit Singh who admittedly is junior to the petitioner. The petitioner had appeared in the test, despite the TT sheet as referred to above, which clearly show that he has appeared for DVR MT Grade-I, he has been deprived of his right. 19. In the earlier round of litigation when in view of stand taken by Addl. SGI that the case of the petitioner will be considered, SWP No. 2240/2001 was disposed of. In compliance whereof, case of the petitioner has been considered but not in the spirit it should have been in the background of the records and the above stated position of the petitioner which in turn has given rise to unnecessary 2nd round of litigation. 20. For the stated reasons and circumstances, petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to take steps required so that the case of the petitioner for the promotion to the post of DVR MT Grade-I from the date respondent No. 5-Baljit Singh has been promoted to the post of DVR MT Grade-I is finalised and to grant him all consequential benefits. The respondents shall pass orders in the light of the facts circumstances and the observations made hereinabove within a period of eight weeks. 21. Petition succeeds, shall stand disposed of as above.