K.C.AGRAWAL,J. - (1.) THE only point in the present appeal is in respect of interpretation of entry of Schedule VI 'Ministerial' in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board (Service) Bye -Laws, 1977. The entry No. 8 of the aforesaid schedule VI provides that the post of UDC is to be filled in 100% by promotion, and the minimum qualification and experience required for promotion to the post of UDC is that the person must have five years experience as LDC except graduate with three years service as LDC, The dispute is with regard to the words 'except graduate with 3 years service as LDC. According to the appellant if a person has served as LDC before graduation that period is also required to be taken into consideration while according to the respondents the person should serve for three years as graduate only then he can take the benefit of the latter part of the minimum qualifications and experience required for promotion. The post of UDC is to be filled in 100% by promotion from amongst LDC's having 5 years service and three years in case of graduates LDCs. The eligibility for promotion is to be determined on the 1st day of April of the year of selection. The appellant has claimed seniority on the ground that after acquiring the degree of graduation in Arts in 1978 he should have been treated as eligible for promotion to the post of UDC as the period of three years' service as LDC had already been completed by then. Learned Single Judge found that the appellant had not disclosed the fact that other respondents except the respondent No. 8 were also possessing the qualification of graduation when they entered in the service of the Board as LDC. On merits also it was found that the respondents had completed three years' service and were graduates and therefore they were eligible for promotion to the post of LDC on April 1, 1978 much prior to the appellant and since the respondent No. 8 had also completed 7 years' service as LDC in the year 1977 he was eligible for promotion as UDC.
(2.) WE have considered over the matter and heard arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties. Reliance has been placed on the case of G.C. Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 837/1983, decided by this court on November 29, 1988 wherein the dispute was with regard to the promotion from the post of Junior Engineers to the post of Asstt. Engineers and the requisite experience required was as under: Asstt. Engineer B.E. (Civil) or qualifications Note: Prior to the date (Civil) declared equivalent by the cadre of Junior Government with 3 years Engineers has been service as Junior Engineer separated as Sub (Civil) or if Diploma Holder Engineers the service as (civil) from a recognised Engineering Subordinate institution with 10 years or Junior Engineers requisite experience as Sub shall count as Engineer (Civil) or experience or service in Matriculates with 15 years view of Rule 20 hither requisite experience as Sub to fore. Engineer (Civil) The rule mentioned above was inserted on April 5, 1976 and therefore it was contended that the experience gained prior to the Degree shall be as good as the experience gained thereafter and the petitioner cannot be deprived of the said benefit in the year 1977 after the said amendment. This court came to the conclusion that in view of the amendment dated April 5, 1976 it is clear that three years' experience after degree is not essential. This judgment was followed in the case of Dharam Veer v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1992 (2) WLC -297. In the case of N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 564, the matter was with regard, to appointment by promotion of Section Officers (Junior Engineers) for appointment as Asstt. Engineers. The qualification as prescribed under the rules was as under: 1. Section Officers possessing a recognised Degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent with three years' service in the grade failing which Section Officers holding Diploma in Civil Engineering with six years' service in the grade -50% 2. Section Officers possessing a recognised Diploma in Civil Engineering with six years service in the grade -50%. Rule 11 provides for recruitment by promotion from the grade of Section Officers and the qualifications were laid down under Rule 7, It was interpreted by the Apex Court that the entire scheme of the rules indicates 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 therefore that period of three years can commence only from the date of obtaining the Degree and not 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' service as a Degree -holder.
(3.) IN the case of M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey : (1994)ILLJ414SC , the controversy was as to whether the seniority amongst the diploma -holder Sub -Engineers who acquired the degree of graduation in engineering during the period of service qualifying them for promotion in eight years to the post of Asstt. Engineer is to be determined from their date of appointment on the post or from the date of acquiring educational qualification. There was no specific rule governing such a situation and as a matter of practice, the State Government was applying the principle of counting the seniority from the date of continuous officiation irrespective of the date on which such diploma -holder Sub Engineers acquired degree of graduation in Engineering. In these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the seniority is to be counted from the date of appointment and not from the date of acquiring the required educational qualification.;