JUDGMENT : K. Sema, J. Heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Advocate General for the appellants, and Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 &2/writ petitioners. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 04/06/2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 22/2021, by the learned Single Judge, interfering with Note-3 appended to the Memorandum No. WH/EST/38/2008 (Pt)/153 dated 26/03/2018 by which the writ petitioners were debarred from consideration for promotion to the next higher grade on the ground that the petitioners only had the diploma in Mechanical Engineering. 3. Before adverting to the impugned judgment & order, the brief facts essentials for disposal of the writ appeal may be recited as under; i) The Nagaland Engineering Service (Group-A and Group-B) Rules, 2012 regulates recruitment and conditions of service of all persons appointed to the Nagaland Engineering Service (Group-A and Group-B) in a) Public Works department, b) Public Health Engineering department and c) Power department. ii) The relevant rules under the Rules 2012 necessary for reference in the present appeal is reproduced below; Rule-3 Definition: …………………………………. (9) “Diploma” means diploma from a recognized Polytechnic/Institute. (12) “Discipline” means a specific branch of Engineering, such as Civil, Electrical, Architectural, Public Health or Mechanical. 4. Constitution and composition There shall be a constituted service known as the Nagaland Engineering Service (Group-A and Group-B) consisting of Civil, Electrical, Architectural, Public Health and Mechanical Engineers appointed to (a) Public Works Department (b) Public Health Engineering Department and (c) Power Department. Persons appointed to each of this departments disciplines shall constitute separate (distinct) cadres of service viz Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Public Health and Architectural. A member of one cadre shall not be appointed to have any right for appointment to the post included in any other cadre. An officer in any grade shall have no claim for appointment to any post in higher grade, except in accordance with the provisions of these Rules. 5. Grade and status The service shall consist of different grades in each cadre service, as enumerated in column No. 2 of Schedule-I, II, III, IV, V & VI. 7. Method of recruitment Recruitment to the service shall be done by either direct recruitment or by promotion. 5. Grade and status The service shall consist of different grades in each cadre service, as enumerated in column No. 2 of Schedule-I, II, III, IV, V & VI. 7. Method of recruitment Recruitment to the service shall be done by either direct recruitment or by promotion. The qualifications for direct recruitments, criteria for promotion to various grades of service and the ratio/quota for direct recruitment and promotion at each grade of the service at the commencement of these Rules, shall be stipulated in Schedule VII. iii) The respondent No.1/writ petitioner No.1 in the present appeal is a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering. By the office order dated 15/06/1998, issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD(R&B), Nagaland, Kohima, the petitioner No.1 was initially appointed as S.O Gr-I in a scale of pay and posted under the establishment of the Executive Engineer PWD(R&B), Aboi. The appointment was on contract basis for a period of 6 months. The service of the petitioner No.1 was extended from time to time and thereafter, by the order dated 14/12/2006 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief (NPWD), the service of the petitioner No.1 as S.O Gr-I, was regularized with effect from 26/10/2006 and was posted under the establishment of E.E (R&B) Mokokchung Division. iv) The respondent No.2/writ petitioner No. 2 in the present appeal is a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering. By the order dated 09/06/2003 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief (NPWD), Nagaland, Kohima, the petitioner No.2 was initially appointed as S.O Gr-II on provisional basis and posted under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Kiphire Division. Thereafter, by the office order dated 14/12/2007, issued by the Engineer- in-Chief PWD, Nagaland, Kohima, the petitioner No.2 was promoted to the post of S.O Gr-I on officiating basis and posted in the same division. Subsequently, by the order dated 15/06/2009 issued by the Engineer-in- Chief PWD, Nagaland, Kohima, the persons serving on provisional basis in the post of S.O Gr-II etc. were regularized in service. In the said order, the petitioner’s name appeared at Sl. No.53. Thereafter, by the office order dated 17/08/2010 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief NPWD, Nagaland, Kohima, the officiating promotion of the petitioner as S.O Gr-I was regularized w.e.f 14/12/2007, on the recommendation of the DPC. v) By the letter dated 11/10/2007, the Government of Nagaland, Works & Housing department (Establishment Branch), up-graded 47(forty seven) post of S.O Gr-I to that of Junior Engineer (Class-II gazetted). v) By the letter dated 11/10/2007, the Government of Nagaland, Works & Housing department (Establishment Branch), up-graded 47(forty seven) post of S.O Gr-I to that of Junior Engineer (Class-II gazetted). In the up-graded list, the name of the petitioner No.1 is in Sl. No. 46. vi) Thereafter, by the letter dated 01/02/2010, the Government of Nagaland, in the Works & Housing department (Establishment Branch) up-graded 9(nine) post of S.O Gr-I/M.O Gr-I to that of Junior Engineer (Class-II gazetted). In the up-graded list, the name of the petitioner No.2 is at Sl. No. 7. vii) Both the petitioners are presently serving as Junior Engineers in the department of Works & Housing (NPWD), Nagaland, Kohima. viii) By the Memorandum No. WH/EST/38/2008 dated 24/01/2012, issued by the Government of Nagaland, Works & Housing department (Establishment Branch), the Tentative Seniority List of Junior Engineers serving under the NPWD as on 01/09/2011 was circulated. In the said seniority list, the name of the petitioner No.1 appeared at Sl. No. 285 while the name of the petitioner No.2 was shown at Sl. No. 305. ix) Since the petitioner’s qualification was diploma in Mechanical Engineering, they were sought to be excluded from the seniority list of the employees serving under the department of Works & Housing. The petitioners, therefore, along with other similarly circumstanced employees submitted the representation dated 21/03/2016 for inclusion of their names in the seniority list of Junior Engineers (JE) under the department of Works & Housing. x) Subsequent thereto, the Memorandum No. WH/EST/38/2008 (Pt)/153 dated 26/03/2018 was issued by the Government of Nagaland, Works & Housing department (Establishment Branch) by which the seniority list of Junior Engineers (Degree/Diploma & Certificate holder) under the Nagaland Public Works department as on March 2018 was circulated. In this seniority list, the name of the petitioner No.1 is at Sl. No. 471 while the petitioner No.2 is at Sl. No. 472. In Note-3 Appended to the said seniority list, it is recorded as follows; ‘ 3. Certificate Course and others:- Sl. No. 442 to 503 Certificate Course and others shall not be eligible for further promotion to higher grade’. xi) The petitioners had accordingly filed the writ petition to quash and set aside the Memorandum No. WH/EST/38/2008(Pt)/153 dated 26/03/2018 circulating the seniority list of Junior Engineers under NPWD as on March 2018 and to direct the State respondents to correct the Memorandum dated 26/03/2018 vis-à-vis the petitioners. xi) The petitioners had accordingly filed the writ petition to quash and set aside the Memorandum No. WH/EST/38/2008(Pt)/153 dated 26/03/2018 circulating the seniority list of Junior Engineers under NPWD as on March 2018 and to direct the State respondents to correct the Memorandum dated 26/03/2018 vis-à-vis the petitioners. xii) The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties has allowed the petition by interfering with the Note-3 Appended to the Memorandum dated 26/03/2018 which debars the petitioners from further promotion to the next higher grade. It is the correctness of the judgment & order dated04/06/2024 which is the subject matter of the present appeal. xiii) It may be pertinent to herein state that subsequent to the issuance of the impugned Memorandum dated 26/03/2018, the Government of Nagaland in the Works & Housing department (Establishment Branch) has issued the Notification No. WH/EST/39/82 dated 28/11/2019 confirming the service of the petitioners along with other Junior Engineers on successful completion of the probation period and on the recommendation of the State Medical Board. 4. Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Addl. Advocate General, assailing the judgment & order dated 04/06/2024 submits that the learned Single Judge has erroneously interfered with the Note-3 Appended to the Memorandum dated 26/03/2018 which was issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Nagaland Engineering Service (Group-A and Group-B) Rules, 2012. Ms. V. Suokhrie has submitted that when the petitioners have not impugned the relevant provisions of the Rules 2012, the learned Single Judge could not have interfered with the Note-3 of the Memorandum dated 26/03/2018. To substantiate her submission, the learned Addl. Advocate General has referred to Rule-3(12) of the Rules 2012 which defines discipline to mean a specific branch of Engineering, such as, Civil, Electrical, Architectural, Public Health or Mechanical, Rule-4 which provides for the constitution and composition of service, Rule-7 which provides the method of recruitment and also to Schedule-VII Sl. 6 which provides the percentage of post to be fulfilled up by direct recruitment and by promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer/Asst. Engineer/Asst. Architect. The learned Addl. Advocate General submits that a reading of the provisions of the rules will clearly demonstrate that since the petitioners only possess the qualification of diploma in Mechanical Engineering they would not be eligible for further promotion in the civil wing of the Public Works department. The learned Addl. Engineer/Asst. Architect. The learned Addl. Advocate General submits that a reading of the provisions of the rules will clearly demonstrate that since the petitioners only possess the qualification of diploma in Mechanical Engineering they would not be eligible for further promotion in the civil wing of the Public Works department. The learned Addl. Advocate General accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the Note-3 appended to the Memorandum dated 26/03/2018 which debars the petitioners for promotion to the next higher grade in service. The learned Single Judge however by wrongly interpreting the rules has interfered with Note-3 of the said memorandum, more so, when no challenge has been laid to the relevant provisions of the Rules 2012. 5. Mr. A. Zhimomi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2/writ petitioners on the other hand submits that the writ petitioners were appointed and regularized in service in the Public Works department and the petitioners being in the cadre service of that department, the Note-3 to the Memorandum dated 26/03/2018 could not have been incorporated solely to deprive the promotion to the petitioner to the next higher grade only on the ground that the petitioners were diploma holders in Mechanical Engineering. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s service being absolutely in accordance with Rules 2012, the question of challenging the Rules 2012 did not arise for the consideration of this Court in the present case. Mr. A. Zhimomi submits that when the petitioners are in the cadre service of the NPWD, the question of excluding them for promotion to the next higher grade in the said department is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the Rules 2012. 6. The service record of the petitioners clearly reveals that both the petitioners were initially appointed in service in the Works & Housing department and their services were regularized and confirmed in the said department. This position is also unequivocally admitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General. On a pointed query by this Court, as to whether the Rules 2012 regulates the recruitment and service conditions of the petitioners and if so, under which department/discipline, the service of the petitioners will be constituted, the learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the Rules 2012 applies to the service of the petitioners and the service of the petitioners is constituted under the Nagaland Public Works department (NPWD). The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the Rules 2012 applies to the service of the petitioners and the service of the petitioners is constituted under the Nagaland Public Works department (NPWD). The learned Addl. Advocate General however submits that though the petitioners are in the cadre service of the Public Works department but as they do not possess the diploma in civil engineering but only in mechanical engineering they are not eligible for promotion to the next higher grade under Rule-7 read with Serial No.6 of Schedule-7 of the Rules and therefore Note-3 was incorporated in the Memorandum dated 26/03/2018 debarring the petitioners and similarly circumstanced persons for promotion to the next higher grade. 7. A perusal of Rule-3(12) and Rule-4 of the Rules 2012 will clearly demonstrate that the petitioners were appointed in the civil wing of Public Works department and therefore, there is no dispute that they are in the cadre service of the said department. Rule-4 particularly provides that persons appointed to each of this department/disciplines shall constitute separate (distinct) cadre of service in civil, electrical, mechanical, public health and architectural and a member of one cadre shall not be appointed or have the right for appointment to the post included in any other cadre. An officer in any grade shall have no claim for appointment to any post in a higher grade, except in accordance with the provisions of these rules. There is no ambiguity in the language employed by Rule-4 of the Rules 2012. The petitioners are in the cadre service of the Public Works department and therefore, there is no reason for the respondents/department to deny promotion to the petitioners to the next higher grade by appending Note-3 to the Memorandum dated 26/03/2018 only for the fact that the petitioners possess diploma in the mechanical engineering. The State respondents themselves having admitted that the petitioners are in the cadre service of the Public Works department, the provisions of Rules 2012 applies to the petitioners and the petitioners promotion in service to the next higher grade should be given by giving effect to the relevant provisions of Rules 2012 and not otherwise. 8. The relevant provisions of the Rules 2012 relied upon by the learned Addl. 8. The relevant provisions of the Rules 2012 relied upon by the learned Addl. Advocate General, in support of her case, has also been elaborately discussed and dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the judgment & order dated 04/06/2024 which are reproduced herein below; “11. From the stand which has been taken by the respondent for debarring the petitioners from being promoted is that the petitioners have Diploma in Mechanical Engineering whereas in the wing where the petitioners have been appointed, the qualification should have been Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering. This Court has also taken note of the Rules of 2012 wherein as per Rule 5, the services of the Nagaland Public Works Department shall consist of different grades in each cadre which have been enumerated in Schedule I, II, III, IV, V and VI. 12. This Court finds it very relevant at this stage to take into consideration that Rule 5 of the Rules of 2012 only mentions about Grade and cadre service and do not deal with the discipline. The relevance of which could be seen infra while discussing Serial No.6 of Schedule-VII of the Rules of 2012. Rule 7 of the Rules of 2012 stipulates the method of recruitment and as per the said rule, the same shall be done either by direct recruitment or by promotion. It further stipulates that the qualifications for direct recruitment, criteria for promotion to various grades of the service and the ratio/quota for direct recruitment and promotion at each grade of service at the commencement of the Rules of 2012 shall be stipulated in Schedule-VII. 13. Now, let this Court deal with Schedule-VII of the Rules of 2012 and more particularly Serial No.6 which is reproduced herein below: SCHEDULE-VII Refer to Rule-7 of the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 2012 (Group A&B) Sl. No. Name of the post Percentage of post filled up by Eligibility and other conditions for promotions/ recruitments Direct recruitment Promotion (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 6 Sub-Divisional Officer/Asstt. Engineer/Asstt. Architect 60% 40% (i) 60% of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the Degree holders in the concerned engineering discipline of a recognized university. No. Name of the post Percentage of post filled up by Eligibility and other conditions for promotions/ recruitments Direct recruitment Promotion (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 6 Sub-Divisional Officer/Asstt. Engineer/Asstt. Architect 60% 40% (i) 60% of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the Degree holders in the concerned engineering discipline of a recognized university. (ii) 40% of the post shall be filled by promotion from amongst the Degree/Diploma holders in the concerned engineering discipline and who have completed a minimum period of 7(seven) years of continuous service in the immediate lower grade in case of diploma holders, and 4(four) years in case of degree holders on the basis of merit-cum- seniority. 14. A perusal of the above quoted table would show that 60% of the posts in the Grade of Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer/Assistant Architect would be filled up by way of Direct Recruitment from amongst the Degree holders in the concerned Engineering discipline of the recognized University. The remaining 40% of the posts are to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Degree/Diploma holders in the concerned Engineering discipline and who have completed a minimum period of 7(seven) years of continuous service in the immediate lower grade in case of Diploma holders and 4(four) years in the case of Degree holders on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. It is apposite to note that the stipulations contained in Serial No.6 of Schedule-VII do not distinguish between a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering with the Diploma holder in Civil Engineering else, there would have been incorporation of discipline vis-à-vis the cadre. Unlike that, if this Court takes note of the qualifications necessary for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer/Junior Architect/System Analyst/Shift Engineer which are the feeder post, there is a specific mention of a Degree or 3(three) years Diploma in the concerned Engineering Branch recognized by the AICTE. 15. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, when Rule 7 read with Serial No.6 of Schedule-VII of the Rules of 2012 does not bar consideration for promotion of a Degree or Diploma holder of any engineering discipline more so in the instant case Mechanical, the respondents were therefore not justified in debarring the petitioners herein for consideration of promotion by incorporating their names in Note-3 of the Memorandum dated 26.03.2018. The said Note-3 insofar as the petitioners are concerned violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 16. This Court has also taken note of that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein were initially appointed as Sectional Officer Grade-I and Sectional Officer, Grade-II respectively and they were regularized on 14.12.2006 and 15.06.2009 respectively. The respondents have regularized the services of the petitioners in the Civil Engineering Cadre. Under such circumstances, now the respondent Authorities, in the opinion of this Court, cannot debar the petitioners from consideration for promotion to the next higher grade, if they are otherwise qualified, on the ground that they only have Degree/Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. The said actions in the opinion of this Court amounts to be an action which is arbitrary and unreasonable which violates the mandate of fairness and Article 14 of the Constitution. 17. Accordingly, this Court therefore interferes with the Note- 3 appended to the memorandum dated 26.03.2018 only insofar as the petitioners are concerned.” 9. We are conscious that the present appeal being an intra Court appeal, unless the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is wholly unreasonable or perverse, the appellate court would be loath to substitute the view taken by the learned Single Judge merely on the ground that another view is plausible. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has painstakingly deliberated and decided on the issues raised before it by the parties and has assigned cogent and justifiable grounds to come to the conclusion. We may, in this connection, gainfully refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Ltd. -versus- Workmen of Narendra & Company reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340 , wherein it has been held as follows; “4….. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 10. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 10. In view of the observations and the findings made above and considering the attending facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment & order dated 04/06/2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 22/2021. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. 11. No order as to cost.