JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Petitioner is serving as Officiating Executive Engineer in District Level Development Authority, Uttarkashi. Pursuant to order dated 09.01.2024, passed by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun in Claim Petition No. 04/SB/2024, Additional Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Uttarakhand decided petitioner’s representation dated 24.01.2024 and rejected his claim for notional promotion against degree holder quota post of Assistant Engineer of Selection Year 2011-2012. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/decision dated 13-05-2024 passed by Respondent No. 1 and 2 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to grant seniority to the petitioner in the proposed Review DPC w.e.f. 2011-12 and to grant notional promotion to the petitioner on the vacant post of Assistant Engineer before 2018 i.e. 2011-12.” 2. In his representation, petitioner submitted that one Mr. Girish Chandra Bhatt was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 04.10.2013 against a degree holder quota post on the strength of B. Tech. degree obtained through distance mode from Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Deemed University Sardarshahar, Rajasthan in the year 2010; while, petitioner obtained B. Tech. degree from the same University in the year 2006, and petitioner also qualified the Validation Examination, held in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & others, (2018) 1 SCC 468 , in the first attempt, therefore, the promotion given to Mr. Girish Chandra Bhatt is liable to be cancelled and petitioner deserves to be notionally promoted against the said vacancy. 3. The State Government has passed a detailed order on 13.05.2024, whereby petitioner’s representation has been rejected. One of the grounds taken for rejecting petitioner’s claim for notional promotion to the vacancy, against which Mr. Girish Chandra Bhatt was promoted, is that One Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, who also obtained B. Tech. degree through distance mode in 2006 and has also qualified Validation Examination, conducted by AICTE pursuant to judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is senior to the petitioner, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion against vacancy of recruitment year 2011-2012, cannot be accepted. 4. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, who also obtained B. Tech. degree through distance mode in 2006 and has also qualified Validation Examination, conducted by AICTE pursuant to judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is senior to the petitioner, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion against vacancy of recruitment year 2011-2012, cannot be accepted. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the promotion given to Mr. Girish Chandra Bhatt as Assistant Engineer on 04.10.2013 was subject to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. (supra), therefore, after judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said promotion was liable to be cancelled, however, the promotion given to Mr. Bhatt was not cancelled and he was permitted to serve as Assistant Engineer till his retirement. Thus, he submits that the post held by Mr. Girish Chandra Bhatt should be deemed to have fallen vacant on the date of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e. 22.01.2018 and petitioner should be promoted against the said post, at least w.e.f. 23.01.2018. 5. Per contra, Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that the claim for notional promotion staked by petitioner is unsustainable for the following reasons:- A. One Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, who is senior to petitioner and had obtained B. Tech. degree in the same year, cannot be superseded in the matter of promotion and petitioner has no claim better than that of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta. B. Petitioner passed Validation Examination conducted by AICTE on 30.07.2018 and before passing the said examination, he was not entitled to be considered for promotion against degree holder quota post. C. Petitioner is promoted as Assistant Engineer against a degree holder quota post against a vacancy of recruitment year of 2019-2020, and he never staked claim for notional promotion till retirement of Sri Girish Chandra Bhatt. D. Notional promotion can be claimed only when a junior person is promoted earlier in point of time by ignoring claim of his senior, which is not the case here, as no person junior to petitioner was promoted. 6. We find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Admittedly, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta was appointed before petitioner’s appointment, and in the seniority list also, he is placed above the petitioner. 6. We find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Admittedly, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta was appointed before petitioner’s appointment, and in the seniority list also, he is placed above the petitioner. Thus, petitioner cannot claim precedence in the matter of promotion against a degree holder quota post of Assistant Engineer. 7. Both, petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta took admission in B.Tech. Course in 2003 in the same institute, therefore, petitioner cannot claim any better right compared to Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, merely because petitioner qualified the Validation Examination in the first attempt; while, Mr. Gupta qualified the said examination in second attempt. According to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court, anyone passing the Validation Examination in the first attempt was entitled to retain all advantages, which were given to him based on B. Tech. degree obtained through distance mode; while, those who qualified Validation Examination in second attempt were not entitled to retain the benefits, if given to them. Admittedly, no benefit was given to petitioner or to Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, therefore, after passing the Validation Examination, Mr. Sudhir Gupta also comes at par with the petitioner. 8. Petitioner contends that due to his passing Validation Examination, the B. Tech. degree possessed by petitioner gets validated from its very inception, therefore, he is entitled to be notionally promoted against vacancy of recruitment year 2011-2012. Similar contention raised by other persons, who obtained B. Tech. degree through distance mode from the same institute was considered and rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parshuram and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 1866. Para nos. 16 and 17 of the said judgment are reproduced below:- “16. Accepting the submission of the Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the aforesaid sentence in the order of the Supreme Court would require this Court to deem the petitioners’ Degree in Engineering to be valid from its very inception, would negate the very basis of the order of the Supreme Court which, while holding that such degrees were required to be withdrawn, took a sympathetic view and permitted such degrees to remain in force consequent on the candidates appearing for, and on passing, the test to be conducted pursuant to the judgment. Any advantage or benefit which the petitioners had, before their Bachelor in Engineering degree stood suspended as a result of the judgment of the Supreme Court, stood restored on their passing the test. As the petitioners had not been promoted earlier as Assistant Engineers, under the Graduates in Engineering quota, the question of restoration of a benefit, which was not extended to them earlier, does not arise. The petitioners are entitled to claim the right to be considered for promotion as Assistant Engineer, under the Engineering degree quota, only from the date on which they passed the examination, and not from a date ten years prior thereto, and nine years prior to the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 17. Viewed from any angle, we see no reason to grant the relief sought for by the petitioners in the writ petition. Suffice it to make it clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to be extended all such benefits, which degree holders in Engineering are entitled to, consequent on their passing the test, as directed to be held by the Supreme Court, in June/December, 2018.” 9. Learned State Counsel is right in contending that notional promotion can be claimed by invoking next below rule, i.e. when a junior person is promoted ignoring claim of his senior, then the senior person can contend that his claim was wrongly overlooked and he be promoted from the date of promotion of his junior. It is not the case here. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the decision taken by Additional Secretary on petitioner’s representation. 10. Even otherwise also, Mr. Girish Chandra Bhatt, who was promoted in 2013 against degree holder quota post of Assistant Engineer on the strength of B. Tech. degree obtained through distance mode, received not only the salary for such promotional post, but also retiral benefits, therefore, petitioner cannot be promoted against the post, which was held by Mr. Bhatt till his retirement on 30.09.2021. 11. Admittedly, petitioner passed Validation Examination conducted by AICTE on 03.07.2018; therefore, in view of judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Parshuram and others (supra), he became eligible to be considered for promotion against a degree holder quota post, only from the date of passing Validation Examination. In such view of the matter also, petitioner’s claim for notional promotion was not tenable in the eyes of law. In such view of the matter also, petitioner’s claim for notional promotion was not tenable in the eyes of law. 12. In view of the discussion made above, challenge thrown by the petitioner to the decision taken by Additional Secretary on his representation, is without any substance. Thus, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.