Holding

A diploma‑holder Junior Engineer who obtains a degree during service must complete three years of service after acquiring the degree to be eligible for promotion under the graduate quota; prior service as a diploma‑holder cannot be counted.

Summary

The case concerned promotion of Junior Engineers in the Slum Wing of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The rules provided separate promotion quotas for graduate and diploma holders, requiring three years of service for graduates and eight years for diploma holders to be promoted to Assistant Engineer. The dispute was whether a diploma‑holder who obtained a degree while in service could count his pre‑degree service toward the three‑year requirement. The Supreme Court held that the three‑year service must be served after the degree is obtained; earlier service as a diploma‑holder cannot be counted. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside and the matter remitted to the Division Bench for fresh consideration. The decision reaffirmed that qualification and service experience are cumulative eligibility criteria and that the rules differentiate qualitatively between diploma‑holder and graduate service.

Issues considered

Whether a diploma‑holder Junior Engineer who acquires a degree during service becomes eligible for promotion to Assistant Engineer on the basis of three years of service counted before or after obtaining the degree.
Whether the DDA's memorandum treating diploma‑holders as degree‑holders for promotion purposes is consistent with the statutory recruitment rules.

Subjects

PromotionService experienceDiploma holderDegree holderEligibility criteriaDelhi Development AuthorityArticles 14 and 16SeniorityDepartmental Promotion CommitteeRecruitment Rules

Judgment

A SHAILENDRA DANIA AND ORS. v -
v.
S.P. DUBEY AND ORS.

APRIL 17, 2006

B [B.N. AGRA WAL, P.P. NAOLEKARAND
LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.]
,,,
Service Law:

c Promotion-Service experience obtained prior to acquiring higher
qualification-Counting of-For promotion from Junior Engineers to Assistant
Engineers-Slum Wing Department of Delhi Development Authority (DDA)-
Degree-holder Junior Engineers vis-a-vis Diploma-holder Junior Engineers-
Post of Junior Engineers-The qualification prescribed was Diploma in C:'vil
D Engineering with two years· experience whereas no experience was prescribed
for graduates in Civil Engineering-On 29.9.1990, a Memorandum was
'issued by the DDA which stipulated that a diploma-holder who had ~

subsequently acquired a Degree in Engineering would be treated as a degree- /
holder for the purposes of promotion, irrespective of the date of acquiring
graduate qualification-A Full Bench of the High Court held that the three
E years' experience gained by the diploma-holders as Junior Engineer had to
be counted for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, in the event they
are duly qualified as degree-·holders-Correctness of-Held: It cannot be
said that a diploma-holder who acquired a degree during the tenure of his
service, has gained experience as a graduate Engineer just because he has
F acquired a Degree in Engineering-That would amount to saying that the -,;.__
experience gained by him in his service as a diploma-holder is qualitatively
the same as that of the experience ofa graduate Engineer-Service experience
of a degree-holder Junior Engineer could not be equated to the service
experience of a diploma-holder Junior Engineer nor could it be substituted
for the service rendered as a degree-holder-Hence, Diploma-holder Junior
G Engineers 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 of Assistant Engineer.

The appellants and respondents were employees of the Slum Wing

H 190
SHAILENDRADANIA v. S.P. DUBEY 191

- 'v Department (SWD) which was a part of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi A
(MCD). SWD was transferred from MCD to Delhi Development Authority
(DDA) in 1974 with the stipulation that its employees alone would be
considered for confirmation and promotion against the posts in it. In 1978,
SWD was retransferred to MCD, but once again in 1980 it was transferred
back to DDA with the stipulation that it would remain as a separate entity
. and its emplo A. DDA, vide its Resolution, adopted Recruitment Rules of
B
CPWD qua the posts of Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive
Engineer. The post of Junior Engineer was meant for 100% direct
recruitment and the qualification prescribed was "Diploma-holders in Civil
Engineering with two years' experience". However, there was no bar for
persons possessing higher qualification, viz., Degree in Engineering, for c
applying to the post of Junior Engineer and such persons were not required
to have any prior experience for appointment to the cadre of Junior Engineer
in DDA. The next higher post was that of Assistant Engineer. The Rule
provided filling up of 50% vacancies on the post of Assistant Engineer by
those who acquired a Graduate Degree in Engineering by means of direct
recruitment or by deputation. The remaining 50% vacancies were to be filled D
up on promotional basis from the post of Junior Engineers. Out of50% of
) the promotional feeder cadre of Junior Engineers, one-half of such posts would
....,. be filled up by promotion of diploma-holders with eight years, qualifying
service and remaining 50% quota would be filled up from the Junior
Engineers who were Graduate Engineering Degree-holders with thee years' E
qualifying service. Further promotion in the Engineering Branch was from
the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer. The minimum
qualifying experience for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer for
graduate Engineers was eight years' experience in the grade of Assistant
Engineer, whereas for diploma-holders it was ten years' service in the grade
,.;.;- of Assistant Engineer. F

The appellants were graduates with Engineering Degree and joined the
Department of Junior Engineers as direct recruits. In the year 1984, the
Junior Engineers and the Assistant Engineers, who were diploma-holders,
assailed the constitutional validity of the rules in the matter of requirement
of differential service experience between the graduates and he diploma-
G
holders for promotion to the higher cadres, viz., Assistant Engineers and
--r-
Executive Engineers respectively before the High Court. Another writ petition
was filed before the High Court challenging the resolution which allowed
DDA to distinguish the diploma-holders and degree-holders in the matter of
experience and promotion as Executive Engineers. The High Court allowed H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A both the writ petitions and struck down the rule and the resolution. However, v- -
the judgment of the high Court was reversed by this Court in Roop Chand
Adlakha 's case.

In 1989, on of the respondents filed a writ petition challenging the note
appended by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in 1971 to relax
B the rules in favour of the diploma-holders, who, while in service acquired
degree qualification so that they could be considered for promotion to the post
of Assistant Engineer.

In 1990, the Slum Wing Graduate Engineers' Association filed a writ
C petition before the High Court and sought direction against the DDA to fill
up the posts of Assistant Engineers belonging to the degree-holders' quota
and claimed that the diploma-holders were much in excess of their quota. A
Division Bench of the high Court directed the DDA to convene a DPC for
each of the three years in order that promotion is made and a parity of 1: 1 is
maintained between the promotees. A DPC was held in which the appellants
D were considered on the basis of their seniority.

In the meanwhile, on 20.9.1990, a Memorandum was issued by the DDA
(
which stipulated that a diploma-holder who had subsequently acquired a
Degree in Engineering would be treated as a degree-holder for the purposes (

of promotion, in respective of the date of acquiring graduate qualification.
E However, by giving effect to the said Memorandum a fresh DPC was convened
which changed the seniority list in favour of the respondents. The said
Memorandum was quashed by the High Court. A Division Bench dismissed
the appeal preferred by the diploma-holders. An Establishment Order was
issued to promote the diploma-holders on current duty chare basis. A writ
F petition challenging the said order was allowed by the high Court. This Court
dismissed the Special Leave Petitions in /imine challenging the aforesaid
order of the High Court.

Pursuant to the High Court directions the DDA issued a final seniority
list of the Engineers. The appellants were promoted as Assistant Engineers
G on the recommendation of the DPC. One of the respondents filed a writ petition
for quashing of the above-mentioned seniority list. A Full Bench of the High
Court held that the note issued by the DPC in 1971 was in violation of the
statutory rules, that the DPC had no jurisdiction as the same had not been
approved by the DDA and that the practice which was followed pursuant to
Note of 1971 till 1982 was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Full Bench
H further held that the experience gained by the diploma-holders as Junior
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY 193
Engineer has to be counted for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, A
in the event they are duly qualified as degree-holders. Hence the appeals.

The following question arose before this Court:-

Whether a diploma-holder Junior Engineer, who obtained a degree while
in service, became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on B
completion of three years of service after he obtained the Engineering Degree
or on completion of three years of service prior to obtaining the Degree in
Engineering?

Allowing the appeals, the Court
c
HELD: 1.1. 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 D
were such to treat the diploma as equivalent to a degree for the purpose of
•
.I
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A different quality of service rendered. (Para 40] (217-H; 218-A-E]
Kimti Lal Kathuria v. Delhi Development Authority, (1988) Lab IC 434
Del, Roop Chand Ad/akha v. Delhi Development Authority, [1989) Supp. 1
SCC 116, R. K. Milla/ v. Union ofIndia, 45 [1991) DLT 589 (Del), Slwn Wing
Delhi Development Authority Graduate Engineers' Association (Regd). v.
B D.D.A., 46 [1992) DLT 486 (DB) and f.!. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India,
(1992) Supp. 1SCC584, referred to.

1.2. In the given case, it cannot be said that a diploma-holder who
acquired a degree during the tenure of his service, has gained experience as
a graduate Engineer just because he has acquired a Degree in Engineering.
C That would amount to saying 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
D diploma-holders is maintained under the rules in further promotion to the
post of Executive Engineer also, wherein then' is no separate quota assigned
to degree-holders or to diploma-holders and the promotion is to be made from :r
the cadre of Assistant Engineers. (Para 40] (218-F-G]

E MB. Joshiv. Satish Kumar Pandey, [1993] Supp. 2 SCC 419, D. Stephen
Joseph v. Union of India, (1997] 4 SCC 753 and Anil Kumar Gupta v.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, [2000) 1 SCC 128, referred to.

2.1. The rules provide for different service experience for degree-holders
and diploma-holders. Degree-holder Assistant Engineers having eight years
F of service experience would be eligible for promotion to the post of Executive
Engineer, whereas diploma-holder Assistant Engineers would be required 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 di.f}erentia in the qualifying service of eight years for degree-holders
and 10 years' service experience for diploma-holders. The rule itself makes
G 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.
(Para 40( [218-H; 219-A-B(
2.2. Different period of service attached to qualification as an essential
H criterion for promotion is based on administrative interest in the service.
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY 195
- '< Different pf:riod of service experience for degree-holder Junior Engineers A
and diploma-holder Junior Engineers for promotion to the higher post is
conductive 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 qu~lity output To carry out technical specialized
job more efficiently, higher technical knowledge would be the requirement B
Higher educational qualifications develop broader perspective and, therefore,
service rendered on the same post by a more qualifying person would be
. ' qualitatively different. (Para 401 (219-B-DI

A.K. Raghumani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath, (2000) 4 SCC 30,
referred to.
c
3.1. 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 it be substituted for service
rendered as a degree-holder. When the claim is made from a fixed quota, the D
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 E
years' experience is the requirement in their 25% quota.
(Para 411 (219-E-F)

State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, (197411SCC19,
referred to.
F
3.2. 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 a watertight compartment for
graduate Junior Engineers and diploma-holder Junior Engineers. They are
entitled for promotion in their respective quotas. Neither a diploma-holder G
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-hi;lders itself indicates that service required
for promotion is an essential eligibility criterion along with degree or H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A diploma, which is service rendered as a degree-holder in the present case. V' -
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
B cannot be read to be any other thing because this quota is specifically made
for the degree-holder Junior Engineers. [Para 41) [219-G-H; 220-A-B)

4. As a necessary corollary, 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
C 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.
[Para 421 [220-C-D)

D Indian Airlines Ltd. v. S. Gopalakrishnan, [2001) 2 SCC 362, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2219-2222 of
J
2002. I

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2002 of the High Court of
E Delhi in C.W.P. Nos. 1427 & 591of1989, 1923 & 1664of1993.
WITH
C.A. No. 4104 of 2002, T.C. (C) Nos. 83 & 84 of 2005, 2, 3, 46, 47, 48,
49, 50 of2006 and C.A. No. 1999 of2007.

F P.P. Malhotra, ASG., J.L. Gupta, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, P.N. Mishra, R.
Venkataramani and G.D. Gupta, Dhruv Mehta, Harshvardhau Jha, Yashraj
Deora, Mannoj Mehta (for K.L. Mehta & Co.), Shobha Abhishek Sarkar, S.K.
Rout, Onkar Prasad, M.P. Siddique, R.C. Kaushik, Binu Tamta, Sanjiv Sen,
Praveen Swarup, Ashok K. Mahajan, BimaI Roy Jad, V.B. Saharaya and Viresh
B. Saharya (for Saharya & Co,) for the appearing parties and S.P. Dubey In-
G Person.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by "{-

P.P. NAOLEKAR, J. I. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) No. 9239 of2002.

H 2. The appellants and the respondents herein are employees of the Slum
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.] 197

Wing Department (hereinafter referred as "SWD"). SWD was part of the A
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred as "MCD") before 1974.
SWD was transferred from MCD to Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter
referred as "DOA") in 1974 with the stipulation that its employees alone
would be considered for confirmation and promotions against the posts in it.
In 1978, SWD was retransferred to MCD, but once again in May 1980 it was B
transferred back to ODA with the stipulation that it would remain as a
separate entity and its employees would not be merged with ODA. For
recruitment of various staff members in DOA, vide its Resolution No.574
- ·• dated 13.11.1963, DOA adopted Recruitment Rules of CPWD qua the posts
of Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer. In the hierarchy
of Engineering Cadre, the initial post is of Junior Engineer (Section Officer or C
S.O ). The post is meant for I00% direct recruitment and the qualification
prescribed was "Diploma-holders in Civil Engineering with two years'
experience". However, there was no bar for persons possessing higher
qualification, viz., Degree in Engineering, for applying to the post of Junior
Engineer and such persons were not required to have any prior experience D
for appointment to the cadre of Junior Engineer in ODA. The next higher post
is that of Assistant Engineer. The rule provided filling up of 50% vacancies
on the post of Assistant Engineer by those who acquired a Graduate Degree
in Engineering by means of direct recruitment or by deputation. The remaining
50% vacancies were to be filled up on promotional basis from the pool of
Junior Engineers. Out of 50% of the promotional feeder cadre of Junior E
Engineers, one-half of such posts would be filled up by promotion of diploma-
holders with eight years' qualifying service and remaining 50% quota would
be filled up from the Junior Engineers who were Graduate Engineering Degree-
holders with three years' qualifying service. Thus, the diploma-holders having
eight years of qualifying service and Graduate Engineering Degree-holders F
with three years' qualifying service would be considered for promotion to the
post of Assistant Engineer within their quota of 25% each. Further promotion
in the Engineering Branch is from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post
of Executive Engineer. The minimum qualifying experience for promotion to
the post of Executive Engineer for graduate Engineers is eight years' experience G
in the grade of Assistant Engineer, whereas for diploma-holders it is ten
years' service in the grade of Assistant Engineer.

3. The appellants were graduates with Engineering Degree and joined
the Department as Junior Engineers as direct recruits. On 7.6.1985 and 24.6.1985,
some diploma-holder Junior Engineers were promoted on ad hoc basis as H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A Assistant Engineers.
First phase of litigation

4. In the year 1984, the Junior Engineers and the Assistant Engineers,
who were diploma-holders, assailed constitutional validity of the rules in the
B matter of requirement of differential service experience between the graduates
and the diploma-holders for promotion to the higher cadres, viz., Assistant
Engineers and Executive Engineers respectively before Delhi High Court. In
W.P. No.2132 of 1984 (Kimti Lal Kathuria and Ors. v. DDA,) the challenge
was to the rule prescribing three years' and eight years' service experience
C for graduates and diploma-holders respectively to the posts of Assistant
Engineers and a discrimination thus brought about between them. W.P. No.2082
of 1984 (Niranjan Goel and Ors v. DDA,) pertained to the constitutional
validity of the analogous provisions in the rules adopted by Resolution
No. I 05 dated 16.6.1971. The distinction made for promotion of degree-holder
promotees and diploma-holder prornotees was struck down by Delhi High
D Court. It was held that the diploma-holders should be governed by the same
eligibility promotional qualifications that were applicable to degree-holders. In
W.P. No.2082of1984, the Delhi High Court struck down Resolution No.105
dated 16.6.1971 which allowed DOA to distinguish between diploma-holder
and degree-holder Assistant Engineers in the matter of experience and
E promotion as Executive Engineers. By a common judgment dated 2.9.1987
reported as Kimti Lal Kathuria and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and
Ors., (1988) Labour Industrial Cases 434 (Del) = ( 1988) 1 SLR 293, the Court
held that the prescription of differential standards - based even on the
differences in technical, educational qualifications - is violative of Articles 14
F and 16 of the Constitution. However, in Roop Chand Adlakha and Ors. v.
De!hi Development Authority and Ors., [ 1989] Supp. I SCC 116, a two-Judge
Bench of this Court reversed the above-mentioned judgment of the Delhi
High Court.

Second phase of litigation
G
5. In 1971, the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred
as "DPC"), appended a Note relaxing the rules in favour of diploma-holders,
who while in service acquired degree qualification, so that they could be
considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on the following
basis :-
H
I. The period of three years should comprise of at least two years
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.) 199

after graduation plus 3/8 of the service rendered in ODA or other A
government organization or local body as S.O. subject to a
maximum of one year benefit.
2. If a S.O., who has done graduation, completes eight years' service
as S.O. on the date earlier than the date on which the period of
two years after graduation expires, he should be given promotion B
from such earlier date notwithstanding the fact that he has not
completed two years' service after graduation.

On 24.2.1989, S.P. Dubey, one of the respondents herein, filed a writ petition
(W.P. No.591 of 1989) before the High Court of Delhi and challenged the
validity of the above-mentioned Note, which was adopted by the DPC in 1971. C
It was contended that once a diploma-holder acquired a degree qualification,
the entire experience gained by him prior to obtaining the degree qualification
should be counted for considering the eligibility to the post of Assistant
Engineer in degree quota.

6. One Naresh Kumar Gera, on 15.5.1989, filed another writ petition (W.P. D
No.1427 of 1989) before the High Court of Delhi against ODA and challenged
the above-mentioned Note adopted by the DPC in 1971 as arbitrary on the
ground that it was not proportionate to the length of service rendered as
Junior Engineer holding Diploma in Electrical Engineering and accordingly
sought quashing of the rules. E
7. In January 1990, Slum Wing Graduate Engineers' Association filed a
writ petition (W.P. No.250of1990) before the High Court of Delhi and sought
direction against ODA to fill up posts of Assistant Engineers belonging to
degree-holders' quota and claimed that diploma-holders were much in excess
of their quota. The petitioners therein alleged that the intention and the spirit F
behind the Recruitment Rules was that there should be parity between the
degree-holders and diploma-holders in the matter of promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer.

8. On 5.3 .1991, a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi granted an
interim order in W.P. No.250 of 1990 and directed DOA to convene a DPC for G
each of the three years, i.e., January-1988, 1989 and 1990 in order that promotion
be made and a parity of I: I is maintained between the promotees. The relevant
observations of the High Court in that regard are as follows:-

"We are informed that after January, 1987 till today no DPC has been
held. DPCs are required to be held at least once a year. This being so, H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A we direct the ODA to hold a DPC for each of the succeeding years,
namely, 1988, 1989 and 1990 and make regular promotions of eligible .... -
candidates in such a way that as far as possible parity between the
Degree-holders and the Diploma-holders is attained. The regular
promotions so made sh1ll, however, be subject to any direct recruitment,
which may be made in accordance with the rules against the quota
B meant for direct recruits. If as a result of such direct recruitment, any
of the promotees have to be reverted then the reversion should be
done in such a way that the remaining Assistant Engineers who are
promotees should maintain the parity, namely 50% should be from
Degree-holders and 50% from Diploma-holders. For the purpose of
c seniority at least, if not for other benefits, about which we make no
observations, the promotions or regularization should be made with
effect from the date when the vacancies were available and the
candidates became eligible for promotion. The DPC should be convened
within a period of six weeks from today."

D 9. In the meanwhile, on 20.9.1990, a Memorandum was issued by ODA
which stipulat~d that a diploma-holder who had subsequently acquired a
Degree in Engineering would be tre<.ted as a degree-holder for the purposes
of promotion, irrespective of the date of acquiring graduate qualification. It
also stipulated that the Recruitment Rules recognize only a 'Degree' or a
E 'Diploma' for purposes of promotions and did not stipulate any minimum
experience after acquisition of 'Degree'. It was further stated therein that even
if an officer had acquired his degree just before the meeting of DPC, he would
be considered as a degree-holder for that and any subsequent DPCs and the
benefit of the past service would not be available for reckoning seniority.

F JO. On 1.5.1991, a DPC was held in which the appellants were considered
on the basis of their seniority. However, on 5.7.1991, by giving effect to the
Memorandum dated 20.9.1990, a fresh DPC was convened which changed the
seniority list in favour of the respondents as a diploma-holder who had
subsequently acquired a Degree in Engineering would be treated as degree-
holder for the purposes of promotion, irrespective of the date of acquiring
G graduate qualification.
11. The aforementioned Memorandum was challenged by way of a writ
petition W.P. No. 3336 of(1990)- R.K. Mittal & Anr. v. Union ofIndia & Ors.,
before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. By its judgment dated 19.8.1991
H which was reported as 45 ( 199 I) DL T 589, the High Court quashed the •
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.] 201
decision dated 20.9.1990 of DDA and allowed the writ on a limited ground that A
.... prior to issuance of the said circular, principles of natural justice were not
complied with. The relevant observations are as follows :-

"... , I am of the view that the impugned decision has been taken, in
violation of the principles of natural justice, as admittedly, no
opportunity of being heard was given to the Degree-holders, as well B
as, the Diploma-holders. The result is that in my opinion, the case
should be remanded back to the ODA, for taking the decision afresh,
after inviting objections, or comments, both from the Degree-holders
._,
• and Diploma-holders Junior Engineers. The representatives of both
these categories be also given opportunity of being heard. After this,
it is for the DDA to interpret or clarify the rules."
c
" .... The impugned decision dated September 20, 1990, is quashed and
set aside. I remand the matter back to the DDA, with dim:tion to
decide the matter afresh, within a period of six months, after inviting
objections I comments from all concerned and after giving an
D
opportunity of being heard, to the representatives of Degree-holder
and Diploma Holder Junior Engineers."

The diploma-holders by way of a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No. 43 of 1991)
~
challenged the decision of the Single Judge dated 19.8.1991. On 5.2.1991, an
Establishment Order was issued to promote diploma-holders on current duty E
charge basis. The same was questioned by filing a writ petition W.P. No. 2382
of (1991) - Slum Wing Delhi Development Authority Graduate Engineers'
Association (Regd) & Ors. v. D.D.A. & Ors., By its decision dated 12.2.1992
reported as 46 (1992) DLT 486 (DB)= 1992 (22) DRJ 548, the Delhi High
Court's Division Bench dismissed the LPA and allowed the writ petition
holding that three years' experience required for degree-holders' eligibility F
.... quota had to be considered after acquiring the degree. The High Court
summarized the issues as follows :-

"Herein, the main controversy is whether a Diploma holder Junior
Engineer, who obtains degree while in service becomes eligible for
promotion as Assistant Engineer on rendering three years' service G
would include therein the period of service rendered by him prior to
.
--,..
the obtaining of the Degree or he has to render three years' service

- after obtaining the Degree to become eligible for promotion to the
post of Assistant Engineer.. .....
H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A ... Here the only point for our consideration is whether three years
service as Junior Engineer has to be after obtaining degree or the .,..
earlier service of the Junior Engineer while he Iding oiploma only can
also be considered"

12. The Division Bench of the High Court relied upon the observations
B of this Court as propounded in N. Suresh Nathan and Anr. v. Union of India
and Ors., [1992] Supp. l SCC 584 wherein the Court has observed that Rule
7 lays down the qualifications for direct recruitment from the two sources.
namely, degree-holders and diploma-holders with three years' professional
experience. In other words, a degree is equated to diploma with three years' ~ ,
professional experience. Rule 11 provides for recruitment by promotion from
c the grade of Section Officers (now called Junior Engineers) which provides
two categories of Junior Engineers, i.e., degree-holder Junior Engineers with
three years' service in the grade and the diploma-holder Junior Engineers with
six years' service in the grade and promotional quota of 50% from each
category which matches with Rule 7 wherein a degree is equated with diploma
D with three years' professional experience. The entire scheme, therefore, does
indicate that the period of three years' service in the grade required for
degree-holders according to Rule 11 as the qualification for promotion in that
category must mean three years' service in the grade as a degree-holder and, I
-.'
therefore, that period of three years can commence only from the date of
obtaining the degree and not earlier and this interpretation of Rule 11 is quite
E tenable and commends to us being in conformity with the past practice
followed consistently. It has also been so understood by all concerned till the
raising of the present controversy.
., .

13. On 25.2.1992, one of the respondents herein S.P. Dubey and others
F challenged the abovementioned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated
12.2.1992 before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 7737-
39of1992. The ODA also filed Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 7114-16
of 1992 against the aforesaid judgement. This Court dismissed these petitions
vide order dated 20.8.1992 in limine.

G 14. Pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment dated 12.2.1992
of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, DOA by a circular dated
30. i 0.1992 issued tentative seniority list of the Engineers and indicated their
placement as per their eligibility for promotion as Assistant Engineer upto ,.... .
H
15.10.1992. On 19.3.1993, the final seniority list of graduate Junior Engineers
(Civil) indicating their placement as per eligibility for promotion as Assistant
-
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY [P.P. NAO LE KAR, J.) 203
Engineer (Civil) was circulated. On 22.3.1993. the appellants were promoted as A
- ·-( Assistant Engineers (Civil) on the recommendations of DPC against the
vacancies arising during calendar year spanning from 1.1.1988 to 1992 as per
the seniority list prepared by the Department in accordance with the judgment
dated 12.2.1992 of the High Court. The seniority list so drawn was based on
two principles, namely,
B
I. The date on which the select.on panel of Degree-holders was
approved for appointment as Junior Engineers, and
2. The date of acquisition of degree by a Diploma-holder Junior
Engineer working in the Department,

Provided that the persons in ( 1) above would maintain their inter se
c
seniority by the selection panel;

Provided further that ifthere are more than one Diploma-holder Junior
Engineer acquiring degree as in (2) above, then they will be assigned
inter se seniority according to the order in which their names figure
D
in 1987 list.

15. On 22.3.1993, the Department issued a corrigendum with regard to
>
the seniority position.
:::- 16. SWD was transferred to MCD on 1.9.1992 and hence the appellants
moved an application before the High Court. The High Court passed an order
E
on 21.9. 1992 that in view of the transfer, the decision of the High Court dated
12.2.1992 would be implemented by MCD within three months from 21.9.1992.

17. One of the respondents herein S.P. Dubey - through writ petition
before the High Court of Delhi (W.P. No. 1664of1993), prayed for quashing F
the above-mentioned seniority list and sought for a direction that promotions
' to the post of Assistant Engineers be made on the basis of the seniority list
issued by the authority in 1984 and 1987. Several other writ petitions were
filed before the High Court of Delhi, which questioned the above-mentioned
seniority list. S.P. Dubey and others through another writ petition before the
High Court of Delhi (W.P. No.1923of1993) prayed for quashing the promotions G
to the post of Assistant Engineers made by MCD vide orders dated 22.3.1993 .
.. -.'I.
18. On 12.3.2001, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide its order
referred Civil Writ Petition Nos. 591of1989, 1427 of 1989, 1664of1993 and
1923 o!' 1993 along with some other petition·s for decision by a Bench of three
H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A Judges of the High Court in view of the fact that it felt that the earlier decision
of the High Court dated 12.2.1992 in Slum Wing Delhi Development Authority ,.__
Graduate Engineers Association (Regd.) & Ors. v. D.D.A. & Ors., (supra},
which followed the decision of this Court in N. Suresh Nathan and Anr. v.
Union of India and Ors., (supra), required to be considered as N. Suresh
Nathan's Case had not been subsequently followed by this Court in other
B cases like M.B. Joshi and Ors. v. Salish Kumar Pandey and Ors., [1993] Supp.
2 SCC 419; D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India and Ors., (1997] 4 SCC 753;
Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.,
[2000] I SCC 128; and A.K. Raghumani Singh and Ors. v. Gopal Chandra
Nath and Ors., [2000] 4 SCC 30 as regards the applicability of eligibility criteria
C in the Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of the Assistant Engineer.
19. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Full Bench of the
Delhi High Court. The present appeals by special leave have been filed before
this Court against the interim and common order dated 25.1.2002 passed by
the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court. The Full Bench of the Delhi High
D Court after consideration of the relevant decisions, the rule in question and
the facts found from the record has recorded the findings that (i) it cannot
be said that the DDA followed a consistent practice to the effect that experience
for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer would be
counted only after a candidate acquires a degree; and (ii) the Note which was
E issued by DPC in 1971 was in violation of the statutory rules dated 13.11.1963.
It was observed that DPC had no requisite jurisdiction therefor, the same had
not been approved by the DDA and such Note was ultra vires. Consequently,
the appropriate practice which was followed pursuant to the Note of 1971 till
6.12.1982 was held to ie wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and thus in
the eye of law to be non est. The issue of res judicata was decided in the
F light of the aforementioned findings. With reference to the Note issued by the
DPC in 1971, it was observed that in a case where the fundamental right of
a person, by reason of a wrong interpretation of statute would be taken away,
which would render a decision nullity, cannot operate as res judicata. It was
further said that a candidate in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution oflndia
G does not have a right to pro.notion, but he has the fundamental right to be
considered therefor. Right to be considered in terms of Article 16 would
embrace within its fold consideration in accordance with law and in a fair, just
and equitable manner. If a candidate is deprived of his right to be considered
for promotion on misinterpretation a~d misconstruction of a statutory
provision, the same in the aforementioned situation would attract the wrath
H of Article 16 and on that ground an earlier decision would not attract the
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY (P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.] 205
.. --\ principle of res judicata. An unreasoned order at the thresholcl does not A
constitute a binding precedent nor would such an order operate as res
judicata. As for the interpretation of the rule regarding the past service of
the diploma-holders, the Court held that the diploma-holders and the degree-
holders were at par. The educational qualification was to be considered for
the purpose of eligibility alone. Once it is held that both the degree-holders
and the diploma-holders had been performing the same type of functions, B
there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that their experience would be counted
. ..., for the purpose of their promotion irrespective of their educational qualification .
As and when diploma-holders acquire qualification, only then they become
eligible for consideration in the degree-holders' quota. It was observed that
it was idle to contend that any anomaly existed and the answer to the c
question referred to the Full Bench was in the following terms:

I. Principle of res judicata in the instant case has no application;
and,
2. The experience gained by diploma-holders as Junior Engineer has
to be counted for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, D

•~• in the event they are duly qualified as degree-holders;

and the matter was remitted back to the Division Bench for consideration of
• the cases in the light of the findings arrived at by the Full Bench.

20. In the present case, we are concerned with the rule relating to E
promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer.

21. It is urged by Shri Jawahar Lal Gupta and Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, the
learned senior counsel for the appellants, that under the promotion rule
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer two separate channels are
-"
provided for diploma-holders and degree-holders within their respective quota
F
and there would be no violation of rules if requisite experiences required on
the post of Junior Engineer as diploma-holder and degree-holder are treated
differently and it would be open for the Government to lay down and treat
different period of experience as qualitatively different for two classes for
further promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. G
le -J.
22. On the other hand, it is urged by Shri G.D. Gupta, the learned senior
_,. counsel for the respondents, that 50% of the promotion quota for degree-
holders Junior Engineers is provided under the rules irrespective of the fact
whether a person has joined the post of Junior Engineer as a degree-holder
or a diploma-holder and, therefore, on correct interpretation of the rule the H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A period of three years' experience required is inclusive of the period of service >- -·
on the post prior to the acquisition of the degree qualification. The plain
meaning of the words in the rule suggests only one inter:iretation that two
qualifications, namely, Degree in Engineering and three years' service are
disjunctive. Therefore, a Junior Engineer who obtains degree while in service,
is required to satisfy only two requirements to become eligible for promotion
B to the post of Assistant Engineer, i.e., a Junior Engineer should have Degree
in Engineering or its equivalent qualification in addition to three years' service
experience as Junior Engineer. The rule refers to three years' service experience ,--

on the post of Junior Engineer and not the experience as qualified degree-
holder Junior Engineer. It is further urged that even otherwise for appointment
c to the post of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment, the qualification
required is Degree in Engineering without there being any requirement of
experience, which shows that the degree-holder with no prior experience is
considered competent to perform the duties attached to the post of Assistant
Engineer. There can be no justification that for promotion to the post of
Assistant Enginee .. a Junior Engineer must possess three years' service
D experience as Junior Engineer after obtaining Degree in Engineering. While
construing the relevant rule, the Court has to take into Consideration the fact
situation in the service and on due consideration of the facts the experience •,..
required for promotion could only mean the experience on the post of Junior
Engineer and not after obtaining the degree for the purpose of promotion in
E the quota of degree-holders.
-
23. Large number of authorities are cited by learned counsel appearing
for both sides raising various issues, viz., whether a diploma-holder after '
obtaining a degree would be compulsorily shifted to the group of graduate
Engineers giving a go-by to their claim for promotion to diploma-holders
F quota or they have a choice to select and continue with either of them. What
should be tte seniority position of the diploma-holders after they have
qualified as graduates, etc. We have refrained ourselves from expressing any
opinion on these points and have confined ourselves to the specific issue
raised before us and answered by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

G 24. In the matter of N. Suresh Nathan and Anr. v. Union of India and
Ors., (1992] Supp. I SCC 584, a three-Judge Bench was called upon to decide .;-..;
a similar question as involved in the present case, namely, whether the three
years' service experience for promotion for graduate Engineers would mean r.
three years' service prior to obtaining the degree or three years' service after
obtaining the degree. The relevant Rule 11 provided for recruitment by
H
•
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.] 207
- -.....~.
the grade of Junior Engineers. Two categories were provided therein, vi:., one A
of degree-holder Junior Engineers with three years' service in the grade and
the other of diploma-holder Junior Engineers with six years' service in the
grade, the provision being for 50% from each category. While interpreting the
rule, this Court said that the entire scheme did indicate that the period of three
years' service in the grade as a degree-holder and, therefore, that period of
three years can commence only from the date of obtaining the degree and not B
earlier. The service in the grade as a diploma-holder prior to obtaining the
--; degree cannot be counted as service in the grade with a degree for the
purpose of three years' !>ervice as a degree-holder. The Court observed as
follows:

"4. In our opinion, this appeal has to be allowed. There is sµfficient
c
material including the admission of respondents diploma-holders that
the practice followed in the department for a long time was that in the
case of diploma-holder Junior Engineers who obtained the degree
during service, the period of three years' service in the grade for
eligibility for promotion as degree-holders commenced from the date D
of obtaining the degree and the earlier period of service as diploma-
~
holders was not counted for this purpose. This earlier practice was

-' clearly admi ted by the respondents diploma-holders in para 5 of their
application made to the Tribunal at page 115 of the paper book. This
a_lso appears to be the view of the Union Pubiic Service Commission
E
contained in their letter dated December 6, 1968 extracted at pages 99-
100 of the paper book in the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 3.
The real question, therefore, is whether the construction made of this
provision in the rules on which the past practice extending over a
long period is based is untenable to require upsetting it. If the past
practice is based on one of the possible constructions which can be F
made of the rules then upsetting the same now would not be
appropriate. It is in this perspective that the question raised has to
be determined."

25. From a reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that after
construing the relevant rule the Court has found that the past practice G
followed in the Department is consistent with the interpretation provided to

-
" ---j.
the relevant rule by the Court.

26. The same question once again came before another two-Judge
Bench of this Court in M.B. Joshi and Ors. v. Satish Kumar Pandey and Ors.,
[1993] Supp. 2 SCC 419. This time an interpretation was required with reference H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A to a quota of I 0% for the graduate Sub-Engineers completing eight years of -~ -
service. The relevant rule provided for Sub-Engineers to qualify for promotion
to the post of Assistant Engineer and qualifying service provided was twelve
years for diploma-holders and eight years for such Sub-Engineers who had
obtained Degree of Graduation in the course of service. By an Executive
Order, 50% of the quota was provided for direct recruits and the balance 50%
B quota by promotion was sub-divided prescribing 35% for diploma-holders
completing twelve years of service, 5% for Draftsmen and Head Draftsmen
completing twelve years of service and 10% for graduate Engineers completing r-
eight years of service. The Court was called upon to consider whether the
period of eight years can only be counted from the date when the diploma-
c holder Sub-Engineers acquired the Degree of Engineering and not prior to the
said date. The controversy arose between the parties is summarized in paragraph
5 of the judgment as under :-

"The short controversy ansmg in these cases relates to the
determination of seniority amongst the diploma-holder Sub-Engineers
D who acquired the degree of graduation in engineering during the
period of service qualifying them for promotion in 8 years to the post
of Assistant Engineer.. .... " •
From the aforesaid, it is clear that the Court was considering the experience/
qualifying service of eight years and twelve years amongst the diploma-
E holder Sub-Engineers and not vis-a-vis the degree-holder Sub-Engineers. The
-
reduction of the qualifying service from twelve years to eight years simply
accelerated the entitlement to promotion for the post of Assistant Engineer
by Sub-Engineers from twelve years to eight years. The qualifying service
which was required to be considered under the rule was that of diploma-
F holder Sub-Engineers. The qualifying service has no relation with the Degree JL...
of Engineering and it is said by the judgment in N. Suresh Nathan's case
(supra) that the rule does not contemplate any equivalence of any period of
service with the qualification of acquiring Degree of Graduation in Engineering.

27. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Court discussed the ratio and held:-
G "A perusal of the above observations made by this Court clearly
show that the respondents diploma-holders in that case had admitted .;-- .
the practice followed in that department for a long time and the case
was mainly decided on the basis of past practice followed in that
department for a long time. It was clearly laid down in the above case
...
H that if the past practice is based on one of the possible constructions
SHAILENDRADANIA v. S.P. DUBEY [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.] 209
- -, which can be made of the rules then upsetting the same now would A
not be appropriate. It was clearly said "it is in this perspective that
the question raised has to be determined". It was also observed as
already quoted above that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the
contrary view and unsettling the settled practice in the department.
That apart the scheme of the rules in N. Suresh Nathan case was
entirely different from the scheme of the Rules before us. The rule in B
that case prescribed for appointment by promotion of Section Officers
--1 I Junior Engineers provided that 50 per cent quota shall be from
Section Officers possessing a recognized degree in Civil Engineering
or equivalent with three years' service in the grade failing which
Sections Officers holding Diploma in Civil Engineering with six years' c
service in the grade. The aforesaid rule itself provided in explicit terms
that Section Officers possessing a recognized Degree in Civil
Engineering was made equivalent with three years' service in the
grade. Thus, in the scheme of such rules the period of three years'
service was rightly counted from the date of obtaining such degree.
In the cases in hand before us, the scheme of the rules is entirely D
~
different".
'· In the above decision (i.e. MB. Joshi's case), the matter of N. Suresh Nathan
(supra) was distinguished mainly on the basis of past practice and the Court
further held that the rule under consideration in N. Suresh Nathan (supra)
was entirely different from the scheme of the rule which the Court was
E
considering in MB. Joshi (supra). We have carefully considered the case of
N. Suresh Nathan and it is not correct to say that the decision rendered in
that matter was based on past practice. The Court, in fact, has considered and
interpreted the relevant service rules and then found that such an interpretation
is fortified by the practice followed in that department. F
- '"'
28. Similar issue once again came before a two-Judge Bench of this Court in
D. Stephen Joseph v. Union ofIndia and Others., [1997] 4 SCC 753. The exact
question was as follows :-

" ....... whether for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the G
50% promotion quota reserved for the person possessing degree in
l- Electrical Engineering from a recognized University or an equivalent
,. with three years' regular service in the grade of Junior Engineers in
the Electricity Department, Government of Pondicherry, three years'
experience as Junior Engineer in the grade is to be counted from the
H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A date of acquisition of the degree in Electrical Engineering or the ;,- -
length of service in the grade of Junior Engineers is to be reckoned
if the incumbent at the time of promotion to the 50% quota also
possesses degree in Electrical Engineering."

29. The ambit of N. Suresh Nathan"s case (supra) is explained in D.
B Stephen Joseph (supra), wherein it is said in paragraph 5 that the State
Government is labouring under a wrong impression as to the applicability of
the past practice as indicated in N. Suresh Nathan's case. This Court, in the
y-
said decision, has only indicated that the past practice should not be upset
if such practice conforms to the rule for promotion and consistently followed
for some time past. The rule has been interpreted in a particular manner and
c N. Suresh Nathan's case only indicates that past practice must be referable
to the applicability of the rule as interpreted by the Court's order in a
particular manner consistently for some time and would lend support to the
interpretation of the rule. The Court emp:iasized that any past practice de hors
the rule cannot be taken into consideration as past practice consistently
D followed for long by interpreting the rule and N. Suresh Nathan's case was
distinguished in the facts of that case and the language of the rule which
came up for consideration. D. Stephen Joseph (supra) provides for promotion
to 50% quota froni Junior Engineers possessing Degree in Electrical Engineering
••
from a recognized university with three years' regular service in the grade of
Junior Engineers. On the plain language of the rule, this Court has held that
E the requirement of the rule is three years' experience as Junior Engineer in the
grade and not the acquisition of Degree in Electrical Engineering. Thus, it
cannot be said that in MB. Joshi and D. Stephen Joseph (supra) the Court
. has taken a different view than what was taken by a 3-Judge Bench in N.
Suresh Nathan's case. In N. Suresh Nathan's case, the Court has interpreted
F the rule which provides for a particular length of service in the feeder post
as qualifying service completed with educational qualification to enable the
candidates to be considered for promotion and, thus the experience so obtained
in the service would necessarily mean the experience obtained after the
requisite qualification was acquired. Thus, the decision turns on the language
of the rule and has distinguished N. Suresh Nathan's case on that basis.
G
30. In Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ..,_,
and Ors., [2000) 1 SCC 128, the relevant rules which came up for consideration
provided for essential qualification for appointment, viz., (a) Degree in Civil ~

Engineering ; and (b) two years' professional experience. The age was not to
exceed 30 years (relaxable for government servants and MCD employees).
H
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY (P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.) 211

·- ' The applications were received for appointment to the post of Assistant A
Engineer (Civil) in the Engineering Department of MCD. The applications
were received from the departmental candidates as well as others. The Selection
Board of MCD had prescribed the norms for awarding marks. Sq "far as the
experience part was concerned, break-up was : Upto two years experience -
'no marks'; 3 to 12 years' and above experience at the ra:te of 1/2 mark, i.e.,
for I0 years - 5 marks; and Viva-voce - 15 marks. The· question for consideration B
was whether the pre-degree experience of the candidates can be taken into
--1 consideration for awarding the marks or whether the candidate's experience
gained after obtaining the degree is to be taken into consideration for awarding
the marks. In paragraph 20 of the judgment, the Court has said that the
provision regarding experience speaks only of professional experience of two c
years and does not, in any manner, connect it with the degree qualification.
Further, the Court has considered N. Suresh Nathan's case (supra) and said
in para 22 that N. Suresh Nathan's case was based initially on the practice
followed in the department over a long number of years when the rules were
understood as full service of three years after obtaining the degree and on
that basis it was held that the service was not to include the service while D
holding a diploma. In paragraph 23, the Court cautioned that any practice
t
•. which is de hors the rules can be no justification for the department to rely
upon. Such past practice must relate to the interpretation of the rule in a
particular manner and while interpreting the language of the notification, the
Court held that two years' professional experience need not entirely be the E
experience obtained after obtaining the degree. Requirement is only degree
and two years' professional experience and not the experience as degree-
holder. We are afraid that the observation of the Court that N. Suresh Nathan's
case was decided mainly on the past practice followed in the department,
would not be a correct reading of N. Suresh Nathan's case. This case was
essentially decided on the interpretation of the rule and the court found F
support to that interpretation from the past practice followed in the Department.
Thus, it appears from this judgment that essentially N. Suresh Nathan's case
was not followed on the interpretation of the rule, which came in question for
consideration before the Court and it was held that the professional experience
required cannot be read to have any connection with the Degree in Civil G
Engineering and, therefore, the professional experience in service irrespective
,.. ..... of a Degree in Civil Engineering would be considered for allotting marks by
the Selection Board.

31. A two-Judge Bench of this Court gave its considered opinion on the
subject by means of interpretation of the word "with' that appeared before the .H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A stated requirement of given period of experience in A.K. Raghumani Singh
and Ors. v. Gopa/ Chandra Nath and Ors., [2000] 4 SCC 30. The Court
considered the rules called "The Manipur PWD/lrrigation and Food Control/
Public Health Engineering (Superintending Engineer (C)/Superintending
Surveyor of Works) Recruitment Rules" wherein it is provided that the post
B of Superintending Engineer shall be filled up by promotion from Executive
Engineer and Surveyor of Works possessing Degree in Civil/Mechanical
Engineering or its equivalent from a recognised institution with six years'
regular service in the grade. The contention was that six years' regular service
in the grade as eligibility criteria should be after the educational qualification
was obtained. The Court interpreted the rules and said that the rule prescribed
C the eligibility criteria to be a prescribed educational qualification and six
years' experience as well. Giving a plain meaning to the phrase, it would not
be justified in reading 'a qualification' into a conjunctive word and imply the
word 'subsequent' after the word 'with'. The Court was of the view that six
years' regular service in the grade would not mean the service subsequent
to obtaining the prescribed educational qualification. Para 9 of the judgment
D gives the Court's reasoning as follows :-

"Even on a point of principle it would be unreasonable to distinguish
between the nature of the regular service required, as if the service
in the grade subsequent to the obtaining of the necessary educational
qualification were qualitatively different from the service in the grade
E prior thereto. In fact no such case has been made out."

· The decision rendered by the Court is based on interpretation of the rule.

32. In Indian Airlines Ltd and Ors. v. S. Gopalakrishnan, [200 I] 2 SCC
362, a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the relevant
F Service Rules in the fact situation where the Indian Airlines Ltd. had invited
applications for the post of Junior Operator. The respondent, who made an
application for the said post, possessed an !Tl certificate since 1994 and a
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. Under the relevant rule, the qualification
prescribed was 'SSC or its equivalent with three years' Government-recognized
G diploma in Mechanical/Electrical/Automobile Engineering and having two years'
experience in equipment operations or driving and possessing current heavy
vehicle driving license' or ' SSC with !TI certificate or equivalent in associated
trades of mechanical/electrical/automobile courses and having five years'
experience in equipment operating or driving and possessing current heavy
vehicle driving license'. The Court said that when in addition to qualification,
H
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.] 213

experience is prescribed, it would only mean acquiring experience after obtaining A
the necessary qualification and not before obtaining such qualification. In the
- ' case of the respondent, he obtained the !TI certificate in 1994 and, therefore,
did not possess five years of experience as required under the relevant rule.
The experience required to be gained by a candidate of five years was held
to be after obtaining the requisite qualification.
B
33. From a reading of the decisions rendered by this Court, one thing
is clear to us that the decisions in N. Suresh Nathan, MB. Joshi, D. Stephen
Joseph, Anil Kumar Gupta, A.K. Raghumani Singh and Indian Airlines Ltd.
(supra), are based on the interpretation of the respective rules called in
question, giving meaning to the words used in the context of the entire C
scheme governing service conditions and the facts involved in each case and
it cannot be said that the decisions rendered by this Court after the decision
of N. Suresh Nathan's case, have taken a different view than what has been
decided in N.Suresh Nathan's case. Thus, we are required to decide the matter
on the basis of the entire scheme of the rules, the facts and circumstances
at the relevant time and the rules called in question before us, independently D
giving meaning to the words, the principle involved and the past practice, if
any, which is in consonance with the interpretation given by us to the rule.
If we find that two views are possible after interpreting the rule, then the rule
would be interpreted keeping with the practice followed in the Department for
a long time and thus the practice practically acquired status of rule in the E
Department.

34. The only question involved in these appeals and transferred cases
can be stated thus : Whether a diploma-holder Junior Engineer, who obtains
a degree while in service, becomes eligible for promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer on completion of three years of service after he obtained F
the Engineering Degree or on completion of three years of service prior to
obtaining the Degree in Engineering.

35. The following table shows the effect and intent of the rules adopted
under Resolution Nos.574 and 105 dated 13.11.1963 and 16.6.1971 respectively.
It also shows the inanner of initial recruitment to the cadre of Junior Engineers: G
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A Executive Engineers
,..
I
(By promotion) -
Assistant Engineers Assistant Engineers
(Degree)+ 8 years' (Diploma) + 10 years'
service service
B
Assistant Engineers
Graduates and Diploma
Holders
r-
[--
c 50 per cent by 50 per cent by direct recruitment
promotion

25 per cent 25 per cent
Junior Engineers Junior Engineers
D (Degree) + 3 (Diploma) + 8
years' service years' service

Junior Engineers ~
(Section Officers) <
Direct recruitment
E

Graduates in Engg. Diloma holders
(No prior experience (with 2 years'
prescribed) experience)
F 36. From a perusal of the rules regarding recruitment to the post of
Junior Engineers and, thereafter, their promotion to the post of Assistant
Engineers and subsequently to the post of Executive Engineers in the service,
it is clear that entry point in the service to the posts of Junior Engineers is
by I 00% direct recruitment. The educational qualification required is Diploma
in Civil Engineering with two years' experience or Graduate in Engineering as
G
has been introduced since 1968. Appointment by direct recruitment to the
post of Junior Engineer for Diploma-holders in Civil Engineering, would be
coupled with two years' experience, whereas Graduates in Engineering are not _.t---- -...,

required to have any experience. For promotion to the post of Assistant
Engineer, the rule prescribes that 50% of the posts will be filled up by direct
H recruitment from the candidates having educational qualification as Graduate
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY [P.P. NAOLEKAR. J.] 215
in Civil Engineering, whereas the remaining 50% of the posts are to be filled A
-.I up by promotion from the post of Junior Engineers. Under clause (a), 50% of
the 50% promotion quota, i.e. 25% of the total posts, have to be filled up by
promotion from the category of graduate Junior Engineers, i.e., the persons
who held the Degree at the entry point in Engineering with three years of
service, whereas under clause (b) 25% of the total posts would be filled up
by diploma-holders with eight years' service. The rule prescribes two sources B
for promotion from the post of Junior Engineers agraduate with three years'
service experience and a diploma-holder with eight years' service experience.
-~
A separate quota is, thus, prescribed for promotion of Junior Engineers for
degree and diploma-holders to that of higher post of Assistant Engineer. For
further promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive c
Engineer, the requirement of the rule is for graduates, eight years' service in
the grade; and, for diploma-holders, ten years' service in the grade. This
distinction between the graduate Engineers and diploma-holders is maintained
for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, although there is no separate
quota prescribed for graduates or diploma-holders, by prescribing different
experience for promotion on the basis of a person being a graduate or a
I)
diploma-holder.

'
)I
37. In Roop Chand Adlakha and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority
and Ors., [ 1989] Supp. 1 SCC 116, application of the rules governing same
service conditions as involved in the present case, was called in question in
E
regard to promotion of diploma-holder Junior Engineers and graduate Junior
Engineers, from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive
Engineer. The diploma-holders in the cadre of Junior Engineers and in the
cadre of Assistant Engineers assailed the constitutional validity of the rules
prescribed in the matter of difference in service experience between the
graduates and diploma-holders for promotion to the higher cadres. They also F
_A( challenged the promotion of graduate Engineers to the higher cadres adopting
the relevant CPWD Rules prescribing three years' and eight years' exper!ence
for graduates and diploma-holders respectively and the discrimination thus
brought about between them. W. P. No. 2082 of 1984 pertained to the
constitutional validity of the analogous provisions in the rules adopted by
Resolution No. 105 dated 16.6.1971. The High Court prescribed differentiai
G
service experience based on differences in educational qualifications, violative
r¥ of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court drew a distinction
between the situation where the diploma-holders were wholly excluded from
eligibility for promotion to the higher cadres and a situation where they were
considered eligible for promotion, however, were subjected to least H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A advantageous condition for such promotion. The High Court distinguished
the decision of this Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath
Khosa and Others, (1974) 1 SCC 19, and said that "this was a case where
diploma holders were found completely ineligible for promotion to the higher
post for lack of essential educational qualification but the considerations may
vary if they are found eligible for promotion to the higher post but still certain
B conditions are laid as distinct from degree holders before they become eligible
for promotion. The question then would arise whether such distinction can
be justified and is based on any rationality or not."
,...._
38. The above-mentioned order of the High Court was challenged in this
C Court and after considering various authorities this Court held in para 29 as
under:-

"In Triloki Nath case Diploma Holders were not considered eligible for
promotion to the higher post. Here, in the present case, the possession
of a diploma, by itself and without more, does not confer eligibility.
D Diploma, for purposes of promotion, is not considered equivalent to
the degree. This is the point of distinction in the situations in the two
cases. If Diploma Holders of course on the justification of the job
requirements and in the interest of maintaining a certain quality of \
technical expertise in the cadre could validly be excluded from the I(

eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre, it does not necessarily
E follow as an inevitable corollary that the choice of the recruitment
policy is limited to only two choices, namely, either to consider them
"eligible" or "not eligible". State, consistent with the requirements of
the promotional posts and in the interest of the efficiency of the
service, is not precluded from conferring eligibility on Diploma Holders
F conditioning it by other requirements which may, as here, include
certain quantum of service experience. In the present case, eligibility
determination was made by a cumulative criterion of a certain
educational qualification plus a particular quantum of service
experience. It cannot, in our opinion, be said, as postulated by the
High Court, that the choice of the State was either to recognize
G Diploma Holders as "eligible" for promotion or wholly exclude them
as "not eligible". If the educational qualification by itself was recognized
as conferring eligibility for promotion, then the superimposition of
further conditions such as a particular period of service, selectively,
on the Diploma Holders alone to their disadvantage might become
discriminatory. This does not prevent the State from formulating a
H
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.] 217
policy which prescribes as an essential part of the conditions for the A
- '( very eligibility that the candidate must have a particular qualification
plus a stipulated quantum of service experience. It is stated that on
the basis of the "Yaish Committee" report, the authorities considered
the infusion of higher academic and technical quality in the personnel
requirements in the relevant cadres of Engineering Services necessary.
These are essentially matters of policy. Unless the provision is shown B
to be arbitrary, capricious, or to bring about grossly unfair results,
judicial policy should be one of judicial restraint. The prescriptions
-' may be somewhat cumbersome or produce some hardship in their
application in some individual cases ; but they cannot be struck down
as unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary. The High Court in our opinion, c
was not justified in striking down the rules as violative of Articles 14
and 16."

39. Although the Court considered the case in the perspective of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it is clear to us that the classification
was upheld between diploma-holder and graduate Engineers on the basis of D
the requirements of the promotional posts and in the interest of the efficiency
of the service. While referring to experience required for promotion, the Court
has specifically said that eligibility determination was made by a cumulative
>
criterion of a certain educational qualification plus a particular quantum of
service experience. Thus, as per the Court, the requirement for promotion is
the educational qualification plus a particular quantum of service experience.
E
The Court further observed that if the educational qualification by itself is the
only criterion conferring eligibility for promotion, then the superimposition of
further conditions such as a particular period of service, selectively, on the
diploma-holders alone, to their disadvantage, might become discriminatory,
but as it is the eligibility criteria it cannot be held as a discrimination. The F
Court has made distinction between the service rendered as diploma-holder
and graduate Engineer and thus has not found any discrimination in different
period of experience provided for promotion for degree-holder and diploma-
holder. Degree and a diploma with different period of service is held to be a
valid classification whereby a different period of service has been made
eligibility criteria along with educational qualification for promotion to the G
higher post.
) --~
40. 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' H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B having a further qua! ification 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
c 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%.
D 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
E 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
F Engineering. That wc..uld 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
G 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
H Assistant Engineers having eight years of service experience would be eligible
SHAILENDRA DANIA v. S.P. DUBEY [P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.] 219
for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, whereas diploma-holder A
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 dif!erentia 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 B
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 C
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 D
person would be qualitatively different.

41. 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 E
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 F
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 G
in the respective quota fixed for graduates and diploma-holders. There is
watertight compartment for graduate Junior Engineer5 and diploma-l\'11der
Junior Engineers. They are entitled for promotion in their respective qtfotas.
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 H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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.

C 42. 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-
D holder Junior Engineers for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers.

43. For the above reasons, the appeals are allowed and the impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside. The writ petitions shall now be
decided by the Division Bench of the High Court in accordance with law laid ....
down herein. The writ petitions which were transferred to, and registered as
E Transferred Cases in, this Court, shall also be sent back to the High Court
for their decision in accordance with law.
-
v.s.s. Appeals allowed.