JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Judgment dated 1.9.2010 passed by learned Single Judge is under challenge in the present appeal. The respondentBoard is in appeal before us. 2. The complaint is that the petitioner-workman being not eligible for want of requisite educational qualification was not entitled to seek regularization as Work Mistry/Supervisor. It is seen that learned Single Judge after taking note of the facts that the petitioner-workman right from his initial engagement i.e. 21.3.1989 was working and discharging the duties of Work Mistry/Supervisor, ordered that he was required to be considered for regularization against the post of Supervisor and not against the post of Beldar. The writ petition, as such, was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization against the post of Supervisor. 3. When this judgment was not complied with the petitioner-workman had sought the execution thereof by way of filing execution petition(T) No. 14 of 2013. Learned Standing counsel representing the respondent-Board has apprised this Court that the instructions to implement the judgment stood already issued to the competent authority. The execution petition, as such, was disposed of with the observation that on compliance of all the codel formalities the judgment be fully implemented. Learned Standing counsel has stated at Bar that consequent upon the order passed in the execution petition the impugned judgment now stands implemented, of course subject to the outcome of the present appeal. 4. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge for the reasons that the petitioner-workman who throughout remained working as Work Mistry/Supervisor was rightly ordered to be regularized as such. The educational qualification may be matric for the post in question, however, the petitioner-workman having sufficient experience, was entitled to regularized as Supervisor instead of Belder. 5. A larger Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad versus Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation , (1990) AIR(Supreme Court) 371 has held as under: " ..Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assesss the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed education qualifications .." 6. Otherwise also, in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules in the matter of educational/technical qualification in respect of persons engaged on daily wage/muster-roll basis at the time of their regularization, the relaxation in educational qualification can be granted. We are also of the considered opinion that when a person like the petitioner was working as Work Mistry/Supervisor with under matriculation qualification how he could have not worked as such on regularization of his services with that very qualification. 7. We, therefore, find no merits in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand dismissed.