JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.Chanda, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned notification dated 02/10/2012, by which the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Border Roads Development Board, General Reserve Engineering Force (Border Roads Organisation) Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) Group ‘B’ post, Recruitment Rules, 2012 (herein after referred to as the 2012 Rules ) has been enacted, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The further prayer of the petitioners is to frame Service Rules in consonance with General Reserve Engineering Force (Group – C & D) Recruitment Rules, 1982 (herein after referred to as the 1982 Rules) and the amended Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1996 (herein after referred to as the 1996 Rules) , for providing promotional avenues to the petitioners, including promotion to the posts of Charge Mechanic. 3. The petitioners’ further case is that the 2012 Rules should be set aside, in so far as the promotional avenue of the petitioners, who are employed as Turners, have been extinguished, for being promoted to their earlier promotional post of Charge Mechanic, which has now been re-designated as Junior Engineer (E &M). 4. The petitioners’ case is that in terms of the 1982 and 1996 Rules, the Turners employed under the Border Road Organisation (BRO) were having 10% promotional quota to the post of Charge Mechanic. The petitioners, who are Turners, have the educational qualification of 2 years Diploma in Turner trade. The Vehicle Mechanics, who have the educational qualification of 2 years Diploma in Vehicle Mechanic are also in the feeder for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic. However, with the coming into force of the 2012 Rules, the 10% promotional quota for Turners, for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic was done away with. However, the Vehicle Mechanics continued to be in feeder posts for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic even under the 2012 Rules. 5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that promotion being a condition of service, the respondents could not have taken away the promotional avenue of the petitioners, without giving any justifiable reasons for the same. However, the Vehicle Mechanics continued to be in feeder posts for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic even under the 2012 Rules. 5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that promotion being a condition of service, the respondents could not have taken away the promotional avenue of the petitioners, without giving any justifiable reasons for the same. He also submits that though the 1982 Rules was superseded by the 2012 Rules, the 2012 Rules was arbitrary and liable to be struck down, as it was in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. 6. Mr. U.K. Goswami, the learned CGC, on the other hand, submits that there was no infirmity with doing away with the promotional avenue of the petitioners to the post of Charge Mechanic by way of 2012 Rules, in view of the fact that the post of Charge Mechanic (Diploma holders) was re-designated as Junior Engineer (E & M), as the Charge Mechanic (Diploma holders) post was merged with various other posts, such as Superintendent (E&M-I), Superintendent (E&M-II) (Diploma holder) and Charge Electrician (Diploma holder), vide letter No. F. No. BRDB/06/166/2010/GE-I dated 13/05/2010, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Border Road Development Board. Mr. Goswami submits that in view of the incumbents in the post of Charge Mechanic, (diploma holders) being re-designated as Junior Engineer (E &M), non-diploma personnel were to keep their status until they were wasted out or till they acquired higher qualification for getting further promotion. Based on the needs and the situation in hand, the 2012 Rules was promulgated and the BRO being a work oriented organisation, maintenance of plants and machinery was of utmost importance. Thus, the re-designated posts of J.E. (E &M), which was created, was to be filled up through 100% promotion from the feeder category of Vehicle Mechanic. As the post of Charge Mechanic (diploma holder) no longer existed in the BRO, in view of the above reasons, other than the Charge Mechanic (Non-diploma), who were to be wasted out, there was no promotional avenue for the petitioners to the post of Charge Mechanic (Diploma holder). He submits that the post of Charge Mechanic has been redesignated as Equipment Mechanic (Mechanical), vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence, BRDB, letter No. F. No. BRDB/02/21/2010/GE.I (Vol.II) dated 15/11/2016. 7. Mr. He submits that the post of Charge Mechanic has been redesignated as Equipment Mechanic (Mechanical), vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence, BRDB, letter No. F. No. BRDB/02/21/2010/GE.I (Vol.II) dated 15/11/2016. 7. Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned CGC, submits that even though no promotional avenue exists for the petitioners in view of the 2012 Rules, the petitioners are not deprived of any financial benefit due to not having any promotional avenue, inasmuch as, they are covered under the Assured Career Progression (ACP)/Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme, which is granted to each and every Turner, on completion of 10/20/30 years of regular service, as per the policy in vogue in the BRO. 8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. As can be seen from the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and the pleadings, the petitioners, who are Turners have 2 years diploma as Turners. They had a 10% quota for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic in terms of the 1982 Rules. For promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic, a Turner had to have 3 years of regular service as Turner. For those Turners, who could not be promoted within their quota of 10% to the post of Charge Mechanic, the Turners were given the benefit of the ACP/MACP Scheme applied by the BRO. However, with the coming into force of the 2012 Rules, the 10% promotional avenue of the petitioners has been done away, without any justification being provided by the respondents. 10. Though it is the case of the respondents that the post of Charge Mechanic had been amalgamated/merged with 3 (three) other posts, such as, Superintendent (E & M-I), Superintendent (E &M-II) (Diploma Holder) and Charge Electrician (Diploma holder), which were re-designated as Junior Engineer (E &M) and non-diploma Charge Mechanic were to be wasted out, the fact remains that the petitioners herein are having 2 years diploma as Turners. There is nothing to indicate that a decision has been taken by the respondent authorities that Turners having 2 years Diploma, are not competent to do the job of Charge Mechanic, which has been redesignated as Junior Engineer (E & M). 11. In the case of Food Corporation of India & ors. Vs. There is nothing to indicate that a decision has been taken by the respondent authorities that Turners having 2 years Diploma, are not competent to do the job of Charge Mechanic, which has been redesignated as Junior Engineer (E & M). 11. In the case of Food Corporation of India & ors. Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal & Ors [ (2008) 5 SCC 100 ] , the Supreme Court has held that an employee of a State has a right to be considered for promotion although he has no fundamental right of promotion. It further held that promotion being a normal incident of service, it was necessary for the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, to provide an opportunity for advancement. It further held that if there was no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of Officers, resulting in stagnation over the years, the Court could issue a direction to the Government to make a scheme for promotion of those Officers. 12. In the case of A. Satyanarayana & Ors. Vs. S. Purushotham & Ors [ (2008) 5 SCC 416 ] , the Supreme Court relied upon another of it’s decision, in the case of Dwarka Prasad and others Vs. Union of India and others [ AIR 2003 SC 2971 ] , wherein it held that a policy cannot nullify all promotional avenues to be promoted in respect of a category of employees for all the time, as the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the case of O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India and others [1990 Supp(1) SCC 688] , the Supreme Court held that the provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service, while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. It thus held that the promotion was a normal incident of service. Para 7 of the said judgement is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. Para 7 of the said judgement is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other Ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical A Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage, In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the A category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directorate.” 14. In the case of State of Tripura and others Vs. K.K. Roy [(2004) 9 SCC 65] , the Supreme Court had directed the State of Tripura to pay to the respondent therein, the next 2 (two) higher scales of pay on completion of 24 years of service, even though the State of Tripura did not have the ACP/MACP scheme, in view of the fact that the respondents had not been promoted despite the existence of promotion avenues. The above thus shows that the existence of an ACP/MACP Scheme cannot be a bar for making promotional avenues. 15. On a reading of the above judgments of the Supreme Court, it is quite apparent that the State is required to provide promotional avenues to its employees, so that the denial of the same does not run foul of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 16. We have noticed that the petitioners had earlier approached the Delhi High Court vide WP(C) No. 9025/2014, which was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 19/12/2014, to enable the petitioners to file a representation to the respondents, for providing promotional avenues to the petitioners. 16. We have noticed that the petitioners had earlier approached the Delhi High Court vide WP(C) No. 9025/2014, which was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 19/12/2014, to enable the petitioners to file a representation to the respondents, for providing promotional avenues to the petitioners. In pursuance to the said order dated 19/12/2014 passed in WP(C) No. 9025/2014, the petitioners had submitted a representation dated 16/09/2015 to the respondents, seeking promotional avenues to the next higher post. The Chief Engineer (P), BECON, made a recommendation dated 06.10.2025 to the higher authorities for considering the representation of the petitioners in the ensuing Chief Engineers Conference for deliberation. Thereafter, the prayer of the petitioners was apparently also considered by Col. ADM Manager, BRO on 11/08/2019, wherein, it was recommended that promotional avenue should be provided not only to the Turners, but also to the Machinists, Painters, Welders, Carpenters, etc. However, no decision has been made by the competent respondent authorities till date. 17. Due to the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the respondents should take a decision with regard to the petitioners’ prayer for giving promotional avenues to the Turners (Diploma holders), including in the newly re-designated posts of Junior Engineer (E &M). This is due to the fact that the Turners (Diploma Holders) had a promotional avenue in terms of the 1982 Rules and no reason has been provided as to why the Turners (Diploma Holders) could not be promoted to the newly re-designated post of Junior Engineer (E&M), wherein the earlier promotional post of petitioners i.e. Charge Mechanic is included. 18. The respondents are accordingly directed to take a decision on the question of providing promotional avenues to the petitioners within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 19. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.