JUDGMENT : CIVIL APPEAL NO.7076 OF 2010 The issue involved in this appeal relates to interpretation of Regulation 9 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Recruitment Regulations, 1965 as applicable to the Haryana State Electricity Board. Regulation 9 reads as follows: "Regulation 9:- (1) Recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) shall be;- (a) By direct recruitment 65% (b) By promotion in the manner as under:- 35% (i) From amongst Engineering subordinates as defined in Regulation 2(g) with 5 years service as JE/Civil 22½ % Share quota of 35 % of posts of AEs shall be calculated on the sanctioned strength of posts of Assistant (ii) From amongst Engineering subordinates as defined in Reg 2 (g) possessing AMIE/BE qualification with 5 years service as such 12½ % Engineers Provided that if qualified persons from Para (ii) above are not available, the vacancies may be filled up by promotion of equivalent number from the category (i) and vice versa. CLARIFICATION The eligibility for consideration for promotion from AMIE/BE against 12½ % quota shall be determined from the date of qualifying such examination, provided that:- (i) the ranking list of Engineering subordinates for their promotion as AE after having qualified the AMIE/BE Examination and completion of 5 years service in the cadre, may normally be prepared on first day of January of each year and duly notified to all concerned. (ii) the names of eligible candidates in the Ranking list, will be arranged in order of their date of passing AMIE/BE Examination. The names of the JEs, who qualify the AMIE/BE Examination, during the subsequent years, will be added in the Ranking list below the names of the candidates, who have passed the said Exam in the earlier years." 2. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein who were the original writ petitioners admittedly joined service as Junior Engineers with the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short "the Board") prior to the joining of the appellant. They were diploma holders when they joined service with the Board. On the other hand, the appellant before us (Parveen Gera) was a degree holder engineer and he had obtained his degree of Bachelor in Engineering on 02.06.1981. He joined service with the Board on 06.05.1982. They were diploma holders when they joined service with the Board. On the other hand, the appellant before us (Parveen Gera) was a degree holder engineer and he had obtained his degree of Bachelor in Engineering on 02.06.1981. He joined service with the Board on 06.05.1982. The Regulation quoted above provides two methods of promotion; one, by direct recruitment for 65% of the posts and the second by promotion for 35% of the posts. In the promotion quota, there is a further sub-division and 22½% promotions are to be made strictly on the basis of seniority in the cadre of JE; the only eligibility criteria is that the employee should have five years service in the cadre of JE. An incentive has been given to those diploma holders who attain the higher qualification of degree by passing the AMIE/BE qualification and 12½% of the total number of posts in the cadre of Assistant Engineer are earmarked for this group of persons and there are two eligibility conditions, one, that they should have five years service and second, they should have qualification of AMIE/BE. 3. The short question involved is whether for the purpose of ranking of the eligible Junior Engineers it is only the experience attained after obtaining the qualification of AMIE which has to be taken into consideration or whether the service rendered by an employee even before attaining the AMIE qualification can be taken into consideration while placing him in the ranking list. 4. The first part of the Clarification clearly sets out that the eligibility for consideration for promotion in 12½% quota shall be determined from the date of qualifying such examination. The eligibility criteria are two: one, qualifying the examination and, two, five years of service. Therefore, it is apparent that the service to be reckoned for ranking in the ranking list will be the service rendered after obtaining the qualification of AMIE/BE. In the first part of the Regulation for 22½% promotion quota, the Regulation only provides five years service "as JE", whereas for 12½% quota, it is mentioned five years service "as such". The rule making authority could have easily used the expression "as JE" in the second part also, but this has not been done. In the first part of the Regulation for 22½% promotion quota, the Regulation only provides five years service "as JE", whereas for 12½% quota, it is mentioned five years service "as such". The rule making authority could have easily used the expression "as JE" in the second part also, but this has not been done. The Board prepared the ranking list on 25th February, 1993 as on 1st January, 1993 and the appellant herein (Parveen Gera) was placed at number one by reckoning his seniority by taking into consideration the fact that he joined service as a degree holder and since he had joined on 6.5.1982, his eligibility was considered from 6.5.1987. 5. On the other hand, Respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein who were the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge had joined service earlier to the appellant on 13.07.1979, 31.10.1979, 30.12.1980 and 02.07.1979 respectively and had passed their AMIE/BE examination on 30.08.1984, 30.08.1984, 13.09.1985 and 04.04.1986 respectively. Shri Parveen Gera was promoted on the basis of the ranking list and thereafter Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed the writ petition claiming that since they had joined service as Junior Engineer prior to Parveen Gera, their service even prior to obtaining qualification of AMIE should be taken into consideration. They, however, did not challenge the validity of the Regulation itself. 6. Learned Single Judge held that in view of the Clarification to Regulation 9, it is only the post AMIE experience which could be counted while ranking the eligible officials. 7. Aggrieved by this judgment, the writ petitioners filed a Letters Patent Appeal which was allowed. The Division Bench while allowing the appeal came to the conclusion that there are twin basis of eligibility; one of having five years' experience and second, of having AMIE qualification. According to the Division Bench, the experience rendered even before attaining the AMIE qualification can be taken into consideration and if that be so, the writ petitioners - Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein would rank senior because they obviously had completed their five years of service much prior to the appellant and on the date when they attained the AMIE qualification, they would become eligible for the promotion because the writ petitioners had rendered more than five years' service at the time they had obtained their AMIE qualification. 3 to 6 herein would rank senior because they obviously had completed their five years of service much prior to the appellant and on the date when they attained the AMIE qualification, they would become eligible for the promotion because the writ petitioners had rendered more than five years' service at the time they had obtained their AMIE qualification. The Board was directed to promote the writ petitioners from the date Shri Parveen Gera was promoted. This judgment is under challenge before us. 8. In our opinion, the Clarification is worded in such a manner that it leaves no manner of doubt that the eligibility criteria have to be counted only from the date when the AMIE qualification is attained. It is only the experience which is obtained after passing the AMIE/BE examination which can be taken into consideration. This Clarification was never challenged and, therefore, in our opinion, the learned Division Bench erred in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out to us that the Haryana State Electricity Board itself has taken a different view in so far as electric engineers are concerned. 10. We have also been informed that out of four private respondents, one has died, one has retired, one has taken voluntary retirement and only one, Shri Narinder Kumar is still in service and is to retire on 30th October, 2019. Therefore, we are of the opinion that though the judgment of the Division Bench should be set aside insofar as the legal question is concerned and it is ordered accordingly, the Board should not make any recovery from any of Respondent Nos.3 to 6 nor will it revert Shri Narinder Kumar. The appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in terms of the original order of promotion. 11. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. CIVIL APPEAL NO.6712 OF 2010 12. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.7076 of 2010, this appeal is also allowed.