Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3738 (HP)

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of H. P.

2025-10-09

Ranjan Sharma, Vivek Singh Thakur

body2025
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. In both appeals, judgment dated 22.07.2022, passed by learned Single Judge of this High Court in CWP No. 3773 of 2021, titled Shashi Kant & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., has been assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh as well as private respondents. Therefore, these appeals, for involvement of common question of law and facts to be adjudicated, are being decided by this Common judgment. 2. Parties herein shall be referred as per their status in writ petition. 3. LPA No. 162 of 2022 has been filed by the private respondents whereas LPA No. 10 of 2023 has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Petitioners in CWP No.3773 of 2023 (respondents herein), who were serving as Assistant Engineers in HPPWD Department, filed the said petition, seeking following substantial reliefs:- ‘i) For quashing and setting aside Annexure P-13 rejecting representation of the petitioner. ii) for holding that review DPCs held by the respondents in respect of promotion of petitioners/private respondent JE (AMIE) to the post of Assistant Engineers (PWD) as well as the resultant re-drawn seniority list of AE vide Annexure P-7 dated 1.3.2014 and vide Annexure P-8 dated 1.3.2016 qua the petitioners and private respondents are illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside. Consequently, all actions taken on the basis of these lists w.r.t. petitioners and private respondents be also declared illegal and void. iii) for directing the respondents not to apply the judgment of SS Kutlehria for counting seniority.’ 5. Petitioners and private respondents (in writ petition) were appointed as Diploma Holder Junior Engineers in unified HPPWD Department as it was existing before its bifurcation in the year, 1994. 6. On 27.04.1994, HPPWD Department was bifurcated in two separate departments i.e. HPPWD (B&R) and Irrigation & Public Health Department. 7. Diploma holder Junior Engineers were one amongst other categories of Junior Engineers in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. 8. Before bifurcation R&P Rules to the post of Assistant Engineer in unified HPPWD Department were notified on 18.09.1978 (1978 Rules). As per these Rules, 40% quota was meant for direct recruitment and 60% by promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. 8. Before bifurcation R&P Rules to the post of Assistant Engineer in unified HPPWD Department were notified on 18.09.1978 (1978 Rules). As per these Rules, 40% quota was meant for direct recruitment and 60% by promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Out of 60% Promotion quota, 10% quota was allotted to the Graduate Junior Engineers, who were possessing Graduation Degree at the time of their induction/appointment as Junior Engineers, having 3 years regular or ad-hoc service or both as such and those Junior Engineers who passed Sections A and B of AMIE with five years regular or ad-hoc service or both as such. The relevant provisions were as under: ‘11. Promotion: (i) From amongst Sectional Officers having 7 years regular or adhoc service or both as such and un qualified Sectional Officers with at least 15 years’ regular or ad-hoc service or both as such …………………45% (ii) Draftsman cadre, who have passed at least Matriculation or its equivalent examination and possess a two years’ diploma in draftsmen course from a recognised Institution having 10 years rgular or ad-hoc service or both as such ………5% (iii) From amongst the Graduate Junior Engineers having three years’ regular or ad-hoc service or both as such and those Junior Engineers who have passed Sections A & B of AMIE with five years’ regular or ad-hoc service or both as such ……….……10%’ 9. The R&P Rules for the post of Assistant Engineers in HPPWD were amended vide amendment dated 11.06.1984(1984 Rules). After this amendment, 10% quota available for promotion of Graduate Engineers and AMIE was amended as under:- ‘11(iii) from amongst the Graduate Junior Engineers (University Graduate or AMIE) having three years regular or ad-hoc service rendered upto 31.12.1983 or both as such….. 10%. Note:- For purposes of promotion, three years regular or ad- hoc service rendered upto 31.12.1983 shall be counted from the date of appointment of the Graduate Junior Engineers and from the date of passing Sections A & B of AMIE Examination by in service Junior Engineers respectively’. 10. Videorder dated 07.06.1991, erstwhile H. P. Administrative Tribunal had struck down aforesaid footnote in 1984 Rules and declared it discriminatory and anomalous. 11. After bifurcation of HPPWD, R&P Rules for the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in PWD (B&R) were re-enacted in 1995 (1995 Rules). 12. 10. Videorder dated 07.06.1991, erstwhile H. P. Administrative Tribunal had struck down aforesaid footnote in 1984 Rules and declared it discriminatory and anomalous. 11. After bifurcation of HPPWD, R&P Rules for the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in PWD (B&R) were re-enacted in 1995 (1995 Rules). 12. Vide notification dated 20.12.1993, footnote appended with aforesaid Rules 11(iii) in 1984 Rules, was deleted and revised provision was as under:- ‘Revised provision ‘11(iii) From amongst the Graduate Junior Engineers (University Graduate or AMIE) having 3 years or regular or ad-hoc service or ad-hoc service or both or Junior Engineer. ……. Deleted’ 13. Rules 7,8,10 & 11 of Rules, 1995 were as under:- 7. Minimum Education and other qualification required for direct recruits: ESSENTIAL (a) Must possess a degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent from an Institution/University duly recognised by Central/State Govt. DESIRABLE (b) Knowledge of customs, manners and dialects or Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh. 8. Whether age and Educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will also apply in the case of promotions AGE Not applicable. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION Not applicable 9. …… ……….. 10. Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, deputation, transfer and percentage of vacancies to be filled in by various methods. (i) By direct recruitment ….30% (ii) By promotion amongst the Junior Engineers (Civil) and Draughtsmen Cadre ...70% 11. In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer, grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made By promotion from amongst:- (I) Junior Engineer (Civil) having 7 years regular or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc (rendered upto 31.03.91) service in the grade and unqualified Junior Engineer (Civil) with atleast 15 years regular or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc (rendered upto 31.03.1991) service in the grade. ...45% (ii) Junior Engineer (Civil) who acquire AMIE or its equivalent Degree during service as Junior Engineer (Civil) having 3 years regular or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc (rendered upto 31.03.91) service inthe grade....10% (iii) Junior Engineers (Civil) who possess Degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent etc. the time of appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) having 3 years regular or regular combined continuous adhoc (rendered upto 31.3.91) service in the grade. 10% 14. Vide notification dated 30.05.2002, R&P Rules to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) were again amended and relevant provisions were as under:- 10. Method of Recruitment. the time of appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) having 3 years regular or regular combined continuous adhoc (rendered upto 31.3.91) service in the grade. 10% 14. Vide notification dated 30.05.2002, R&P Rules to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) were again amended and relevant provisions were as under:- 10. Method of Recruitment. Whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, deputation, transfer and the percentage of posts to be filled in by various methods. (i) BY direct recruitment ...30% (ii) By promotion …70% 11. In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer, grade from which promotion/deputation/ transfer is to be made. BY PROMOTION FROM AMONGST:- (I) Junior Engineers (Civil) having 7 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc (rendered upto 31.3.98) service in the grade and unqualified Junior Engineer (Civil) with atleast 15 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc (rendered upto 31.3.98) service in the grade. ...10% (ii) Junior Engineers (Civil) who acquire AMIE or its equivalent Degree during service as Junior Engineer (Civil) having 3 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc (rendered upto 31.3.98) service in the grade. ...10% (iii) Junior Engineers (Civil) who possess Degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent at the time of appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) having 3 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc (rendered upto 31.3.98) service in the grade. ...10% (iv) Draughtsman cadre who have passed atleast Matriculation or its equivalent examination and possess two years diploma in Draughtsmanship course from recognised Institution and having 10 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc (rendered upto 31.3.98) service in the grade. ...4% (v) The Draughtsman cadre who possess AMIE or its equivalent qualification and having three years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc (rendered upto 31.3.98) service in the grade failing which from amongst the draughtsman cadre against column-11(iv). 1% 15. Vide notification dated 20.02.2004, R&P Rules to the post of Assistant Engineer were again amended as under:- Amendment of Annexure-"A" 2. …... (a) For the existing provision against Col. No. 10, the following shall be substituted namely:- (I) By direct recruitment ...25% (ii) By promotion 75% (b) For the existing provision against Col. 1% 15. Vide notification dated 20.02.2004, R&P Rules to the post of Assistant Engineer were again amended as under:- Amendment of Annexure-"A" 2. …... (a) For the existing provision against Col. No. 10, the following shall be substituted namely:- (I) By direct recruitment ...25% (ii) By promotion 75% (b) For the existing provision against Col. No. 11, the following shall be substituted, namely:- (I) Junior Engineers (Civil) having 7 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service in the grade and unqualified Junior Engineer (Civil) with atleast 15 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service in the grade. ...15% (ii) Junior Engineer (Civil) who acquire AMIE or its equivalent Degree during service as Junior Engineer (Civil) having 3 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service in the grade. ...10% (iii) Junior Engineers (Civil) who possess Degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent at the time of appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) having 3 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered in the grade. ...15% (iv) Draughtsman cadre who have passed atleast Matriculation or its equivalent examination and possess two years diploma in Draughtsmanship course from recognised institution and having 10 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service in the grade....4% (v) The Draughtsman cadre who possess AMIE or its equivalent qualification and having three years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service in the grade falling which from amongst the draughtsman cadre against column11 (v). ...1% 16. From the aforesaidscheme contained in the R&P Rules to fill up the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), it is apparent that there were and are two sources for appointment i.e. direct and promotional. In the matter of appointment by promotion, the quota was and has been further distributed amongst Junior Engineers and Draughtsmen. Quota provided for Junior Engineers was further bifurcated into three categories i.e (a) Junior Engineers possessing Graduate Degree or equivalent at the time of induction/appointment; (b) Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, who acquired Degree/passed AMIE during their service; (c) Diploma Holders and unqualified Junior Engineers. 17. Basic educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer is Graduation in Civil Engineering, i.e. Degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent. 17. Basic educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer is Graduation in Civil Engineering, i.e. Degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent. Though educational qualification applicable to direct recruitment is not applicable in case of promotion, however, Junior Engineer possessing Degree at the time of appointment as Junior Engineer is eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer after 3 years service, whereas other, including Junior Engineer having Diploma only at the time of appointment as Junior Engineer becomes eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer after longer period of service, i.e. 7 years. Similarly, Draftsman possessing AMIE or its equivalent qualification is eligible to be considered for promotion after 3 years service, whereas Draftsman with lesser educational qualification becomes eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer after 10 years of service. Therefore, basic educational qualification for promotion is Degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent, like AMIE. Therefore, Junior Engineer not possessing Degree in Civil Engineering/AMIE at the time of appointment as Junior Engineer cannot be equated with or given preference over the Junior Engineer having Degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent at the time of initial appointment. 18. Major portion of quota meant for promotion of Junior Engineers was and has been provided to Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, whereas Degree Holder Junior Engineers were provided separate quota of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on completion of three years service as such, either on regular basis or ad-hoc or both. A separate quota has been provided to diploma holders Junior Engineers who acquired Degree/passed AMIE equivalent to Degree during their service. 19. Petitioners were recruited as Diploma Holder Junior Engineers. They passed AMIE/BE during service and were promoted as Assistant Engineer. Private respondents also recruited as Diploma Holder Junior Engineers after petitioners and they also passed AMIE during service, but prior to acquiring such qualification by the petitioners. They were also promoted as Assistant Engineer. Petitioners are claiming seniority above the private respondents on the basis of their initial date of appointment as Junior Engineer. Whereas private respondents are claiming that the seniority has to be determined with reference to the date of acquiring eligibility for promotion. 20. Seniority list of Assistant Engineers was circulated on 04.11.2008. According to the petitioners that Seniority List was correct. Whereas private respondents are claiming that the seniority has to be determined with reference to the date of acquiring eligibility for promotion. 20. Seniority list of Assistant Engineers was circulated on 04.11.2008. According to the petitioners that Seniority List was correct. On 01.03.2014, respondent-State issued a revised Seniority List of Assistant Engineer by applying ratio of judgment dated 08.01.2010, delivered in CWP No. 1358 of 2008, titled as S. S. Kutlehria & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., wherein for determining the seniority of the petitioners, their period of service as Junior Engineers prior to obtaining AMIE/BE was not considered. Operative portion thereof reads as under:- ‘Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the Rule in this case is akin to the Rules in Shalendra Dania’s case. The Rules provide two categories from which promotions can be made i.e. Graduate Junior Engineers as well as Diploma Holder Junior Engineers who have obtained the Degree of graduation i.e. AMIE during service. The Rules provide an equal experience of 3 years in both cases. This case is therefore squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Shalendra Dania’s case and only the service rendered by the Diploma Holder Engineers after having passed both parts of AMIE can be taken into consideration for reckoning 3 years experience.’ 21. In S. S. Kutlehria’s case, 1983 Rules and footnote contained in Rule 11 providing counting of Junior Engineers service, upon acquiring Degree or passing of AMIE, from the date of initial appointment was subject matter and vide judgment passed by this High Court in S. S. Kutlehria’s case, it was held that only the service rendered by the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, only after having passed both parts of AMIE can be taken into consideration for reckoning three years experience to become eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineers. In Kutlehria’s case this judgment, reliance was placed by the High Court on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Shailendra Dania’s and others vs. S.P. Dubey & Ors. reported in 2007(5) SCC 535 . 22. In Kutlehria’s case this judgment, reliance was placed by the High Court on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Shailendra Dania’s and others vs. S.P. Dubey & Ors. reported in 2007(5) SCC 535 . 22. Being aggrieved by the revised Seniority List issued in the year, 2014, petitioners preferred a petition before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which was transferred to this High Court and registered as CWPOA No. 4686 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2020, directing the petitioners to file their written representation within two days, after passing of the order with further directions to the respondents to dispose of the same within a period of four weeks after affording an opportunity of being heard to any one of the petitioners as also any one of the private respondents. 23. Petitioners preferred the representation(s), which were rejected on 15.12.2020, leading to filing of CWP No. 1958 of 2021, wherein the impugned consideration order dated 15.12.2020 was quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents-State to pass a fresh consideration order within a period of four weeks’ from the date of passing of the order. 24. Vide order dated 26.04.2021, fresh representation(s) preferred by the petitioners were rejected with observation that in accordance with R&P Rules and judgment passed by the High Court as well as the Apex Court, there was no merit in the representation(s) of the petitioners. 25. In the aforesaid background, CWP No. 3773 of 2021, preferred by the petitioners, has been allowed by learned Single Judge by setting aside the rejection order dated 26.04.2021, with further observation that eligibility condition of three years applicable to Junior Engineers having acquired AMIE/BE during service will not be an impediment in reckoning their inter se seniority on the basis of entire length of service in the grade and, accordingly, Seniority Lists dated 01.03.2014 and 01.03.2016 have been quashed to the extent the petitioners were placed juniors to private respondents. The operative portion of impugned judgment reads as under:- ‘25. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the order dated 26.4.2021 (Annexure P-13), cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The eligibility condition of three years applicable to Junior Engineers having acquired AMIE/BE during service will not be an impediment in reckoning their inter-se seniority on the basis of entire length of service in the grade. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the order dated 26.4.2021 (Annexure P-13), cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The eligibility condition of three years applicable to Junior Engineers having acquired AMIE/BE during service will not be an impediment in reckoning their inter-se seniority on the basis of entire length of service in the grade. Accordingly, seniority list dated 1.3.2014 (Annexure P- 7) and seniority list dated 1.3.2016 (Annexure P-8) are quashed to the extent the petitioners were placed junior to respondents No. 2 to 14. Consequently, respondent No.1 is directed to revisit and redraw the seniority list of petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 14 by taking into consideration their entire length of service as Junior Engineers. Respondent No.1 is further directed to hold review DPC for promotion of Junior Engineers, who have acquired AMIE/BE during service to the post of Assistant Engineers in PWD (B&R) in terms of this judgment and to revisit and redraw the seniority list of Assistant Engineers thereafter.’ 26. After taking into consideration the judgments passed in S. S. Kutlehria and Shailendra Dania’s cases, learned Single Judge has observed as under:- ‘21. As is evident from the dictum of S.S. Kutlehria and Shailendra Dania, in both these cases, implication had arisen out of the situation when an incumbent was made eligible to jump into another water tight compartment, which is not the case in the present lis. Here the petitioners are seeking seniority vis-à-vis the persons who also fall in the same bracket of 10% created by 1995 rules and have been given benefit of seniority as Assistant Engineers on the basis of the date of acquisition of AMIE/BE, irrespective of their total length of service in the grade. S.S. Kutlehria was decided by taking into consideration completely different set of Rules, which have undergone change post 1995. The petitioners have agitated their claim on the basis of post 1995 Rules, which refers to three years regular or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc service in the grade. The petitioners and private respondents prior to their promotion as Assistant Engineers belonged to one grade i.e. the grade of Junior Engineers. No separate grade was created merely by acquisition of AMIE/BE during service. Such acquisition created a separate class only for the purpose of considering eligibility for promotion. The petitioners and private respondents prior to their promotion as Assistant Engineers belonged to one grade i.e. the grade of Junior Engineers. No separate grade was created merely by acquisition of AMIE/BE during service. Such acquisition created a separate class only for the purpose of considering eligibility for promotion. In such situation, on acquisition of AMIE/BE during service, diploma holder Junior Engineers would become eligible for promotion through 10% special quota on completion of three years’ service after such acquisition, but it will not mean and imply that their inter-se seniority will also date back to the date of acquisition of higher qualification because it did not create a new grade for them, they remained in the grade of Junior Engineers. All such persons are on equal footing as they were inducted as diploma holder Junior Engineers, thereafter all of them acquired higher qualification during service albeit on different dates and on completion of three years after acquisition of such qualification became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and aforesaid 10% quota. So all such persons, who had acquired higher qualification during service and also had completed three years’ service as such will fall in zone of consideration for promotion, however, their earlier service as diploma holder, where they held their own seniority, cannot be washed away. 22. Once all similarly situated persons, as petitioners and private respondents who initially were inducted as Diploma Holder Junior Engineers and had acquired AMIE/BE during service, by virtue of such acquisition had only become eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers. Such separate class had the contest inter-se and not with the Graduate Junior Engineers. 23. As noticed above, though no additional reason can be allowed to be added or substituted to the reasons assigned in Annexure P-13 for rejecting the claim of the petitioners, yet in order to negate any chance of technicalities becoming obstruction in the course of justice, the contention of private respondents regarding creation of anomalous position is also being put to test. 24. 24. The contention of private respondents that still there will be a contest between the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers having a quota of 45% of promotion after rendering seven years and the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers having acquired AMIE/BE during service and becoming eligible for promotion as JEs after three years, in my considered view deserves to be rejected for the reasons that both the categories have their separate quota and will not overlap. There may be a situation where a Diploma Junior Engineer having acquired AMIE/BE during service, gets no chance of promotion as AE in the first instance in 45% quota after having rendered seven years service or vice-versa but that cannot be called overlapping or jumping to other water tight compartment because both the categories have their separate quota, there being no provisions for intermingling of such quotas. Post of Assistant Engineers being a selection post, R&P rules provide for a twenty-point roster and each category has been provided separate roster point thereby negating any chance of sitting over the promotional avenues of another category.’ 27. Petitioners and private respondents in the present matter were belonging to one category of Junior Engineers, who had acquired Degree or passed AMIE during service. By applying S. S. Kutlehria’s case, their seniority has been determined by considering them eligible for promotion on completion of three years service after acquiring the requisite Degree/AMIE. 28. The reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing the petition is that the petitioners and private respondents belong to one and the same category and they are in watertight compartment, whereas, according to the learned Single Judge, the situation in S. S. Kutlehria and Shailendera’s case, was in different context, as according to him, in present case neither petitioner nor respondents were permitted to jump from one category to another category and, therefore, for determination of inter se seniority amongst them, the entire period of service from the date of their appointment, irrespective of date of their acquiring AMIE/BE shall not have any impact on any other party and thus, ratio of S. S. Kutlehria nor Shailendera Dania’s case, is not applicable in the present matter. 29. 29. After going through the judgments in S. S. Kutlehria, Shailendra’s Dania cases as well as impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that claim of the petitioners to reckon their Seniority from the date of their initial appointment irrespective of the date of acquiring Degree/AMIE, shall not only have impact on the inter se seniority between the petitioners and private respondents, but also upon the Junior Engineers belonging to the category, who at the time of appointment were having Degree and were eligible for promotion on completion of three years as such. Therefore, the dispute inter se petitioners and respondents is not only going to have impact upon the petitioners and private respondents in present matter but also on the other category of Junior Engineers who were having Degree at the time of appointment. 30. Though petitioners and private respondents are one class, who were not having degree at the time of appointment, but were only Diploma Holders, however, after acquiring AMIE/BE qualification and on promotion as Degree Holder Junior Engineer or otherwise on promotion after 7 years as Diploma Holder Junior Engineer but with acquisition of degree during service, they would be competing with Junior Engineers having Degree at the time of initial appointment and, thus, it is wrong to say that determination of inter se seniority amongst the petitioners and private respondents from initial date of appointment shall have no impact on others. It is not a case of watertight compartment, as claimed by petitioners, amongst petitioners and private respondents, as for availing promotion as Degree Holder they joined another compartment of Degree Holder Engineers. 31. The issues involved in present matter basically is that as to whether period of service prior to acquiring essential qualification for becoming eligible for promotion is to be counted for the purpose of counting seniority or not. 32. The issue of determining seniority and becoming eligible to be considered for promotion are interlinked with each other. In case a person becomes eligible from a particular date, his service prior to acquiring such qualification cannot be considered for the purpose of determining his seniority after promotion. 33. 32. The issue of determining seniority and becoming eligible to be considered for promotion are interlinked with each other. In case a person becomes eligible from a particular date, his service prior to acquiring such qualification cannot be considered for the purpose of determining his seniority after promotion. 33. In the Rules relevant in the present matter, Degree Holder becomes eligible for promotion on completion of three years service, whereas diploma holders were eligible for promotion after a period of service of seven years, however, they would be entitled to be considered for promotion on acquiring Degree/AMIE after having completed three years regular or ad-hoc service or both, and on promotion as Degree Holder they shall be one and the same class with Junior Engineers having Degree at the time of induction/appointment. They shall claim further promotion alongwith and in the quota of Degree Holder Junior Engineers. In case petitioners are given seniority from initial date of appointment, it shall have adverse impact on interest of Junior Engineers having degree at the time of appointment 34. The issue involved in Shailendra Danias’ case was also identical, wherein it has been observed as under:- ‘43. Taking into consideration the entire scheme of the relevant rules, it is obvious that the diploma-holders would not be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in their quota unless they have eight years’ service, whereas the Graduate Engineers would be required to have three years’ service experience apart from their Degree. If the effect and intent of the rules were such to treat the diploma as equivalent to a Degree for the purpose of promotion to the higher post, then induction to the cadre of Junior Engineers from two different channels would be required to be considered similar, without subjecting the diploma- holders to any further requirement of having a further qualification of two years’ service. At the time of induction into the service to the post of Junior Engineers, Degree in Engineering is a sufficient qualification without there being any prior experience, whereas diploma-holders should have two years’ experience apart from their diploma for their induction in the service. As per the service rules, on the post of Assistant Engineer, 50% of total vacancies would be filled up by direct recruitment, whereas for the promotion specific quota is prescribed for a Graduate Junior Engineer and a diploma-holder Junior Engineer. As per the service rules, on the post of Assistant Engineer, 50% of total vacancies would be filled up by direct recruitment, whereas for the promotion specific quota is prescribed for a Graduate Junior Engineer and a diploma-holder Junior Engineer. When the quota is prescribed under the rules, the promotion of Graduate Junior Engineers to the higher post is restricted to 25% quota fixed. So far as the diploma- holders are concerned, their promotion to the higher post is confined to 25%. As an eligibility criterion, a Degree is further qualified by three years’ service for the Junior Engineers, whereas eight years’ service is required for the diploma-holders. Degree with three years’ service experience and diploma with eight years’ service experience itself indicates qualitative difference in the service rendered as Degree-holder Junior Engineer and diploma- holder Junior Engineer. Three years’ service experience as a Graduate Junior Engineer and eight years’ service experience as a diploma-holder Junior Engineer, which is the eligibility criteria for promotion, is an indication of different quality of service rendered. In the given case, can it be said that a diploma-holder who acquired a Degree during the tenure of his service, has gained experience as an Engineer just because he has acquired a Degree in Engineering. That would amount to say that the experience gained by him in his service as a diploma-holder is qualitatively the same as that of the experience of a Graduate Engineer. The rule specifically made difference of service rendered as a Graduate Junior Engineer and a diploma-holder Junior Engineer. Degree-holder Engineer’s experience cannot be substituted with diploma-holder’s experience. The distinction between the experience of Degree-holders and diploma-holders is maintained under the rules in further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer also, wherein there is no separate quota assigned to Degree- holders or to diploma-holders and the promotion is to be made from the cadre of Assistant Engineers. The rules provide for different service experience for Degree- holders and diploma-holders. Degree-holder Assistant Engineers having eight years of service experience would be eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, whereas diploma- holder Assistant Engineers would be required to have ten years’ service experience on the post of Assistant Engineer to become eligible for promotion to the higher post. Degree-holder Assistant Engineers having eight years of service experience would be eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, whereas diploma- holder Assistant Engineers would be required to have ten years’ service experience on the post of Assistant Engineer to become eligible for promotion to the higher post. This indicates that the rule itself makes differentia in the qualifying service of eight years for Degree-holders and 10 years’ service experience for diploma-holders. The rule itself makes qualitative difference in the service rendered on the same post. It is a clear indication of qualitative difference of the service on the same post by a Graduate Engineer and a diploma- holder Engineer. It appears to us that different period of service attached to qualification as an essential criterion for promotion is based on administrative interest in the service. Different period of service experience for Degree- holder Junior Engineers and diploma-holder Junior Engineers for promotion to the higher post is conducive to the post manned by the Engineers. There can be no manner of doubt that higher technical knowledge would give better thrust to administrative efficiency and quality output. To carry out technical specialized job more efficiently, higher technical knowledge would be the requirement. Higher educational qualifications develop broader perspective and therefore service rendered on the same post by more qualifying person would be qualitatively different. 44. After having an overall consideration of the relevant rules, we are of the view that the service experience required for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer by a Degree-holder in the limited quota of Degree-holder Junior Engineers cannot be equated with the service rendered as a diploma- holder nor can be substituted for service rendered as a Degree-holder. When the claim is made from a fixed quota, the condition necessary for becoming eligible for promotion has to be complied with. The 25% specific quota is fixed for Degree-holder Junior Engineers with the experience of three years. Thus, on a plain reading, the experience so required would be as a Degree- holder Junior Engineer. 25% quota for promotion under the rule is assigned to Degree-holder Junior Engineers with three years’ experience, whereas for diploma-holder Junior Engineers eight years’ experience is the requirement in their 25% quota. Thus, on a plain reading, the experience so required would be as a Degree- holder Junior Engineer. 25% quota for promotion under the rule is assigned to Degree-holder Junior Engineers with three years’ experience, whereas for diploma-holder Junior Engineers eight years’ experience is the requirement in their 25% quota. Educational qualification along with number of years of service was recognized as conferring eligibility for promotion in the respective quota fixed for Graduates and diploma-holders. There is watertight compartment for Graduate Junior Engineers and diploma-holder Junior Engineers. They are entitled for promotion in their respective quotas. Neither a diploma- holder Junior Engineer could claim promotion in the quota of Degree-holders because he has completed three years of service nor can a Degree-holder Junior Engineer make any claim for promotion quota fixed for diploma-holder Junior Engineers. Fixation of different quota for promotion from different channels of Degree-holders and diploma-holders itself indicates that service required for promotion is an essential eligibility criterion along with Degree or diploma, which is service rendered as a Degree-holder in the present case. The particular years of service being the cumulative requirement with certain educational qualification providing for promotional avenue within the specified quota, cannot be anything but the service rendered as a Degree-holder and not as a diploma- holder. The service experience as an eligibility criterion cannot be read to be any other thing because this quota is specifically made for the Degree-holder Junior Engineers. 45. As a necessary corollary, we are of the view that the diploma-holder Junior Engineers who have obtained a Degree in Engineering during the tenure of service, would be required to complete three years’ service on the post after having obtained a Degree to become eligible for promotion to the higher post if they claim the promotion in the channel of Degree-holder Junior Engineer, there being a quota fixed for Graduate Junior Engineers and diploma-holder Junior Engineers for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers.’ 35. In S. S. Kutlehria’s case, issue involved was that non- Graduate Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, who had passed AMIE Degree during service had been granted seniority by counting their service rendered prior to their obtaining the AMIE qualification. 36. Taking into consideration the judgments passed by the Apex Court in N. Suresh Nathan and another vs. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp. 36. Taking into consideration the judgments passed by the Apex Court in N. Suresh Nathan and another vs. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 584; M. B. Joshi and others vs. Satish Kumar Pandey and others, 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 419; D. Stephen Joseph vs. Union of India and others (1997) 4 SCC 753 ; Anil Kumar Gupta and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others (2001) 1 SCC 128; A. K. Raghumani Singh and others vs. Gopal Chandra Nath and others (2000) 4 SCC 30 ; Indian Airlines Ltd. and others vs. S. Gopalakrishnan (2001) 2 SCC 362 ; Shailendra Dania and others vs. S.P. Dubey and others, (2007) 5 SCC 535 ; Dalip Kumar Garg and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 4 SCC 753 ; K. Ajiot Babu and othrs vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 3277 ; Harsh Dhingra vs. State of Haryana and others, (2001) 9 SCC 550 ; and Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2002) 6 SCC 562 , it was held that only the service rendered by the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers after having passed both parts of AMIE can only be considered for reckoning three years experience and, accordingly, State was directed to re-work Seniority List in the same terms. 37. Petitioners are claiming that they and private respondents belong to one and the same category i.e. Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, who had obtained Degree of graduation/AMIE during service and, therefore, being one and the same class, date of passing of Degree of graduation/AMIE cannot be made basis for reckoning their seniority, because all of them belong to a watertight compartment and, thus, are claiming that for the purpose of seniority of Assistant Engineers, their entire service including the service prior to obtaining the Degree of graduation i.e. AMIE has to be counted for determining their seniority. 38. In view of S. S. Kutlehria and Shailendra Dania’s cases, eligibility for promotion is acquired by the diploma holders after acquiring the AMIE Degree and otherwise they would be entitled for promotion after completion of seven years of service as a diploma holder Junior Engineers. By acquiring the graduation/AMIE Degree, they are entitled for promotion as a Graduate Degree holder Junior Engineers but after acquiring the experience of three years period after passing of the said Degree. 39. By acquiring the graduation/AMIE Degree, they are entitled for promotion as a Graduate Degree holder Junior Engineers but after acquiring the experience of three years period after passing of the said Degree. 39. By acquiring the Degree/AMIE during service, they become entitled to be considered for promotion to Assistant Engineers even prior to completion of seven years service. As they are claiming that their entire service should be taken into consideration but for want of eligibility to be considered for further promotion before completion of 3 years, after acquiring BE/AMIE, the claim of the petitioner is misconceived. 40. The scheme of relevant Rules in present case is also similar to Shailendera Dania’s case. In that case also the Graduate Junior Engineers, Diploma Holders Junior Engineers acquiring AMIE/BE during their service were provided separate quotas, whereas Junior Engineers without Degree were provided separate quota. There was separate watertight compartment for Junior Engineers without degree and Junior Engineers with degree. 41. In the similar circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that fixation of different quota for promotion from different channels of Degree holders and diploma holders is self indicating that service required for promotion is an essential eligibility criteria alongwith Degree or diploma, which is a service rendered as a Degree holder in the said case and the Apex Court has held that three years service on the post was to be completed after having obtained a Degree to become eligible for promotion to the higher post. The service period which cannot be taken into consideration for determining eligibility for promotion cannot be considered for determining seniority. 42. Three years experience as a Degree holder has been considered appropriate by the authority for promotion to the Assistant Engineer, whereas for diploma holders Junior Engineers the said period is seven years. 43. Petitioners have been given benefit of promotion prior to completion of seven years as Diploma Holder Junior Engineers on account of acquiring Degree/AMIE during their service as Junior Engineers but before completing seven years. 44. In the given facts and circumstances, in case a diploma holder Junior Engineer acquires Degree/AMIE during service and he completes three years prior to completion of seven years as diploma holder Junior Engineer, he shall be entitled to be considered for promotion prior to completion of seven years as diploma holder Junior Engineer. 44. In the given facts and circumstances, in case a diploma holder Junior Engineer acquires Degree/AMIE during service and he completes three years prior to completion of seven years as diploma holder Junior Engineer, he shall be entitled to be considered for promotion prior to completion of seven years as diploma holder Junior Engineer. However, in case he completes seven years prior to completion of three years after passing of AMIE Degree, he shall be entitled to be considered amongst diploma holder Junior Engineers as both the options would be available to him, either to be considered as a Junior Engineer, who acquired Degree/AMIE during service as well as Junior Engineer, who at the time of appointment was having diploma only, because the accelerated promotion provided to the Junior Engineer, who acquired Degree/AMIE during service cannot be applied to the disadvantage of diploma holder Junior Engineer to deprive him from promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on completion of seven years service after appointment as diploma holder Junior Engineer, rather he shall be entitled to be considered in either of the category, which provides him opportunity to be considered prior in time. A Diploma Holder Junior Engineer on acquiring Degree/AMIE during his service, shall have option for consideration to the post of Assistant Engineer in either of the category, because he can be considered in both categories, depending upon the given facts and circumstances, which is providing promotion to him prior in time but definitely on completion of three years service after passing of Degree/AMIE. 45. As observed supra, in such eventuality the date which is more beneficial to such incumbent shall be taken as a date of acquiring eligibility for promotion. 46. Unless there is a provision for considering an employee for promotion from the date of appointment, irrespective of acquiring the necessary essential qualification subsequent to joining the post, an employee shall become eligible for determining his eligibility for promotion only after completion of requisite length of service after acquiring/passing of essential qualification. 47. As Graduate Assistant Engineers is one class, whereas Diploma Holder and unqualified Engineers are separate classes. 48. 47. As Graduate Assistant Engineers is one class, whereas Diploma Holder and unqualified Engineers are separate classes. 48. It is true that at the time of appointment as well as till promotion on the basis of Degree/AMIE acquired during service, petitioners and private respondents belonged to a separate compartment than the category of Junior Engineers having Degree at the time of appointment, however, after promotion on the basis of Degree/AMIE, they belong to one class i.e. Assistant Engineers promoted as Graduate Junior Engineers as well as Assistant Engineers with Degree/AMIE and for further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, their combined Seniority List is to be prepared on the basis of their class as Graduate Engineers. In case incumbent belonging to the category of petitioners are permitted to get the benefit of service rendered prior to acquiring the eligibility to be promoted as Graduate engineer, then definitely, it will not only be an act in conflict with the verdict of the Apex Court in S. S. Kutlehria and Shailendra Dania’s case but also amount to give benefit of the service to the petitioners of the period during which they were not at all eligible to be considered for promotion as Assistant Engineer. 49. Learned Single Judge has committed a mistake by considering the claim of the petitioners in isolation without taking into consideration the impact thereof on the other compartments providing promotion to the Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers, wherein a separate length of service has been provided for becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. 50. Learned Single Judge has also missed to consider that on promotion on the basis of BE/AMIE from Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers, Diploma Holder Junior Engineers with AMIE/BE, acquired during service, also jump into the compartment of Graduate Engineers and, thus, claim of the petitioners that they belong to watertight compartment where none, except petitioners and private respondents, can jump, is not complete truth as Junior Engineers, like petitioners and private respondents, jump into queue of Graduate Engineers. 51. 51. In the present case also by applying S. S. Kutlehria as well as Shailendra Dania’s case, the eligibility of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer has to be reckoned on completion of three years service after acquiring the requisite essential qualification and, therefore, for the purpose of seniority also the length of service has to be counted after acquiring eligibility to be considered for promotion of Assistant Engineer. Therefore, Junior Engineers appointed as Graduate Engineers shall become entitled for promotion after three years of service, whereas diploma holder Junior Engineers, who acquired Degree/AMIE during service shall be entitled for promotion on completion of three years service after acquiring the qualification. Whereas simple diploma holder Engineers shall be entitled for promotion after completion of seven years length of service. There may be, rather shall be, intermingling amongst the category of Degree holder Junior Engineers and diploma holder Junior Engineers acquiring Degree/AMIE during the period of service after promotion being Graduate Engineers. 52. There may be cases where diploma holder Junior Engineers, though appointed prior in time, but acquired Degree/AMIE after their junior diploma holder Engineers. Because for the availability of the post there would be possibility of promotion of a junior diploma holder Engineer prior in time to the senior diploma holder Junior Engineer, who acquired Degree/AMIE on a subsequent date to the date of acquiring such qualification by the juniors. 53. In case view of learned Single Judge is upheld there would be ambiguity and uncertainty in determining the seniority as it would create a mess as well as injustice to others who are not party to the petition, because it would not be an ideal situation that period prior to becoming eligible to be promoted is considered for determining the seniority as Assistant Engineer amongst the petitioners and private respondents. 54. For example, in case of Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, ‘A’ person is appointed in 1991, ‘B’ person is appointed in 1992 and ‘C’ person is appointed in 1990. ‘B’ acquires AMIE/Degree in 1994, ‘A’ acquires Degree in 1995 and ‘C’ acquires Degree in 1997. In view of S. S. Kutlehria and Shailendra Dania’s case, ‘B’ will become eligible for promotion in 1997, ‘A’ in 1998 and ‘C’ in the year 2000. ‘B’ acquires AMIE/Degree in 1994, ‘A’ acquires Degree in 1995 and ‘C’ acquires Degree in 1997. In view of S. S. Kutlehria and Shailendra Dania’s case, ‘B’ will become eligible for promotion in 1997, ‘A’ in 1998 and ‘C’ in the year 2000. On availability of the post in the year 1997, ‘B’ being eligible, shall be promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1997, whereas ‘A’ would not be promoted as such because neither he would complete seven years as diploma holder Junior Engineer nor in the year 1997 he would complete three years after acquiring AMIE/degree, but he shall be eligible to be considered for promotion on the basis of AMIE/degree in the year 1998 on completion of three years after acquiring degree/AMIE and in case of availability of post after his acquiring AMIE/degree, he may be promoted, in the year 1998, to the post of Assistant Engineer. ‘C’ will be eligible as AMIE/degree holder in the year 2000, but by that time he would also complete seven years in the year 1997 and on availability of the post of Assistant Engineer for the said category, he may be promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1997. 55. In aforesaid cases, in case the initial date of appointment is permitted to be considered as a date of reckoning the service for the purpose of seniority then, ‘B’ though appointed/promoted as an Assistant Engineer in 1997, i.e. prior to ‘A’ and ‘C’, shall be treated junior to ‘A’ and ‘C’ despite their promotion as Assistant Engineer subsequent to ‘B’. There may be an ‘X’ Junior Engineer having Graduation Degree in Engineering at the time of appointment in 1993, who may have been promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1997. In case of counting service prior to acquiring degree of BE/AMIE, ‘A’, despite his promotion as Assistant Engineer in 1998, i.e. one year after Graduate Junior Engineer, would be considered senior to ‘X’ Graduate Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the seniority, it is not the initial date of appointment but the date, as mandated in S.S. Kutlehria’s case, would be relevant. 56. In case view of learned Single is accepted, then it will unsettle the settled position and will lead to opening of the Pandora Box. 57. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the seniority, it is not the initial date of appointment but the date, as mandated in S.S. Kutlehria’s case, would be relevant. 56. In case view of learned Single is accepted, then it will unsettle the settled position and will lead to opening of the Pandora Box. 57. From the above discussion, it is apparent that claim of the petitioners was rightly rejected by the respondents-State, but the learned Single Judge committed mistake in considering the case as a case affecting only the persons belonging to watertight compartment of Diploma Holder Junior Engineers who acquired BE/AMIE during service, but without considering its impact on all categories entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineer on completion of prescribed length of services at least to the category of Junior Engineers having BE/AMIE at the time of appointment. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and disposed of, and judgment dated 22.7.2022, passed by learned Single Judge of this High Court in CWP No.3773 of 2021, titled Shashi Kant & others v. State of H.P. & others, is set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed.