JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioners have sought for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to afford promotional opportunity to the petitioner to hold higher post of Grade-D Fitter at par with the employees having Matric qualification of the same trade of Fitter as per the cadre scheme as under Annexure-7 w.e.f. 1.5.1997 and also to direct them to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion from the date the candidates having Matric qualification were made available to get the promotional benefits in the post of Category-II and Grade-E along with all consequential service benefits, differential salary. 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners as per the pleading made by them in the writ petition is that they are working as Fitter in Grade-E under the Jagannath area of Ananta Open Cast Project of the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited. Case of the petitioners have been considered at that time for appointment at par with the matriculates having ITI qualification and also non-matriculates having the same qualification. Accordingly, they have been granted promotion as Mazdoor Category-II vide order dated 2.7.1991 in trade of Fitter-Electrician as per the provision made in National Wage Agreement-IV, but their promotion has been recalled vide order dated 21.09.1991 on the ground that they are not eligible for placement in Category-II after one year of service, but however subsequently they have been granted promotion to the post of Category-II vide office order dated 25.09.1993. Case of the petitioners is that the candidates who have been appointed in the Mazdoor Category-II have now been promoted as Fitter but these petitioners have been deprived from the benefit of promotion to the cadre of Fitter, which they cannot do in view of the cadre Scheme dated 17.10.1993 as contained in Annexure-7, hence this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others vrs. Government of NCT, Delhi and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 1241 . 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others vrs. Government of NCT, Delhi and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 1241 . 4. The opposite party-Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. has appeared and filed detail counter affidavit inter alia therein it has been stated that initially the petitioners have been granted promotion as Mazdoor Category-II but the same has subsequently been found to be illegal and contrary to the circular dated 07.01.1989 and as such the order of promotion as Mazdoor Category-II has been recalled and they have been reverted to the Mazdoor Category-I. It has been contended that the basic eligibility condition to get appointment as Mazdoor Category-I is Matriculate as would be evident from Annexure-1 dated 28.09.1989 but due to urgency at the relevant time and shortage of eligible candidates, these petitioners have been appointed by giving relaxation but that does not mean that they will be equated with the matriculate candidates. It has been contended that so far as the Mechanical Fitter Trade discipline is concerned, the Circular dated 7.4.1989 provides the provision to promote to the Fitter category, if a candidate is having experience under Mazdoor Category-I for 1 year and 2 years in Category-II but since the petitioners are not having with the experience of Category-II of 2 years as required under the Circular dated 17.04.1989 and as such their promotion to Mazdoor Category-II has been recalled, hence they cannot be equated with the other candidates who have been promoted as Fitter w.e.f. 1.5.1997, reason being that at that time these petitioners were not possessing the requisite eligibility conditions as required under the said circular. It has been contended by the learned Senior Counsel representing the M.C.L. that the petitioners have not challenged the order of reversion dated 21.09.1991 and without doing so they are making prayer to be equated with the other Matriculate Mazdoors who have been promoted as Fitter having found to be eligible as per the requisite eligibility conditions provided under the Circular dated 17.04.1989. He submits that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others vrs. Government of NCT Delhi and others (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. He submits that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others vrs. Government of NCT Delhi and others (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. It is evident from the pleading made by the parties and also on the appreciation of rival submission that the petitioners have been appointed as Mazdoor Category-I way back in the year 1990, one of the Format of the appointment order dated 26.03.1990 has been annexed as Annexure-2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are non-Matriculate candidates and the requisite eligibility condition for being appointed as Mazdoor Category-I is of having Matriculation qualification as would be evident from Annexure-1 dated 28.12.1991. The petitioners have been appointed even though they are non-Matriculate with ITI, reason explained by the learned Senior Counsel is that during the relevant time due to urgency and non-availability of the eligible candidates, they have been appointed. Be that as it may, the petitioners have continued from the said date as Mazdoor Category-I. They have been promoted as Mazdoor Category-II vide office order dated 2.7.1991, the authorities has come out with corrigendum dated 21.09.1991 recalling the order of promotion given to them as Mazdoor Category-II on the ground that they have found not eligible for placement in Category-II as per the cadre scheme. The petitioners subsequently have been promoted as Mazdoor Category-II under Non-Matriculate ITI w.e.f. 25.02.1993. 6. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition to seek direction upon the opposite parties to treat them at par with that of the Matriculate ITI employees who have been granted promotion as Mazdoor Category-II way back on 2.7.1991 and to give consequential promotional benefits along with all monetary benefit. The petitioners have put reliance upon the cadre scheme dated 7.10.1993 (Annexure-7) i.e. the Implementation Instruction No.49. The petitioners, relying upon the said Instruction, have submitted that in the said instruction, there is no stipulation of having Matriculate rather only ITI and as such depriving them on the ground of having no Matriculate qualification is contrary to the provision of cadre scheme dated 7.10.1993. 7. The petitioners, relying upon the said Instruction, have submitted that in the said instruction, there is no stipulation of having Matriculate rather only ITI and as such depriving them on the ground of having no Matriculate qualification is contrary to the provision of cadre scheme dated 7.10.1993. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners have been appointed in the year 1990 but the Implementation Instruction No.49 has been implemented w.e.f. 7.10.1993, as such the same will not govern the case of the petitioners on the basis of the principle that the Instruction will not be given its retrospective implementation rather it will always be its prospective effect, hence the petitioners will not be governed from the provision made in the cadre scheme as contained in Implementation Instruction No.49 dated 7.10.1993 rather the petitioners will be governed with the Circular dated 17.04.1989, which provides the eligibility conditions to be appointed as Mazdoor Category-I or Category-II having Matriculation and in the light of the said provision even in the interview/trade test for appointment of Mazdoor Category-I , all the candidates including the petitioners were directed to come with the certificate in support of the Matriculation onwards along with ITI in support of Industrial Training and other certificates which goes to suggest that the minimum eligibility conditions for being considered as Mazdoor Category-I is Matriculation with ITI. The petitioners had initially been granted promotion as Mazdoor Category-II vide order dated 2.7.1991 but subsequently it was found that their promotion as Mazdoor Category-II is not in consonance with the requisite qualification provided in the Scheme, since the basic requisite eligibility conditions for placement in Mazdoor Category-II is not having 1 year of service, hence the order of promotion has been recalled. It is admitted position in the case that the petitioners have not challenged Annexure-4, they are now praying in the writ petition to give them parity with the Matriculate candidate by giving them promotion as Fitter w.e.f. the date when they have been granted promotion as Fitter but that cannot be allowed for the reason that for being in the mechanical Fitter trade, the provision has been made in the circular dated 17.4.1989 Matriculate ITI Boys having experience of 3 years (one year as Category-I and two years as Category-II) will be eligible to be promoted as Category-IV, accordingly a person can be put in Excavation Grade ‘E’ after a total experience of three years as Category-I for one year and as Category-II for 2 years. For ready reference, the relevant provision has been quoted herein below:- “Matriculate ITI Boys having experience of three years (one year as Category-I and two years as Category-II) will be eligible to the promoted as Category-IV. Accordingly a person can be put in Excavation Grade ‘E’ after a total experience of three years as Category-I for one year and as Category-II for two years.” It is evident from the said provision, that for being under Mechanical Fitter Trade Mazdoor Category-II is mandatory requirement but the petitioners although have been granted promotion as Category-II vide order dated 2.7.1991 but subsequently it has been recalled vide order dated 21.09.1991 while the other Matriculate candidates, who have been granted promotion as Mazdoor Category-II vide order dated 2.7.1991 since have completed 2 years as Mazdoor Category-II, they have been considered for promotion as Fitter while the petitioners since have not completed two years of service as Mazdoor Category-II counting from 2.7.1991, the date of treating them at par with the Matriculate candidate, the promotion to the Fitter cadre cannot be considered, so far as non-Matriculate candidates are concerned to which the petitioners are belong. 8. The question of treating at par depends upon the equal status on all corners i.e. the eligibility qualification, experiences etc. admittedly the petitioners are non-Matricualte with ITI and to whom they want to be treated at par with Matricualte ITI, hence on the basis of the less qualification, they cannot be treated at par with the employees having higher qualification. 9. admittedly the petitioners are non-Matricualte with ITI and to whom they want to be treated at par with Matricualte ITI, hence on the basis of the less qualification, they cannot be treated at par with the employees having higher qualification. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others vrs. Government of NCT Delhi and others (supra), but the ratio laid down therein is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that there was the issue to treat the candidates under B.Ed. Category at par with T.T.C. category wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the B.Ed. category candidate cannot be equated with the T.T.C. category and accordingly confirmed the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court wherein the B.Ed. candidate have been held rightly to be excluded by the authorities from selection and appointment as Private Teachers who were claiming themselves higher in qualification than that of T.T.C. candidates, but here the fact is entirely different rather the petitioners is less qualified and seeking direction upon the opposite parties to treat them equal with the high qualified persons who are actually eligible to get promotion to the higher cadre on the basis of possessing higher qualification as provided under the Scheme. Moreover, the Scheme has not been assailed by the petitioners. So far as the prayer of the petitioners to grant them all the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 1.5.1997 and the said prayer is being made without assailing the order dated 21.09.1991 under Annexure-4 which cannot be allowed reason being that unless and until the petitioners will be under Mazdoor Category-II for two years then only their cases can be considered to be promoted in the Fitter Category as per the eligibility condition made in the circular dated 17.04.1989 in view of the discussions made hereinabove. 10. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioners have failed to make out the case to get relief. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.