Mohd. Zafar Iqbal Khan and others v. State of Haryana and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220(2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2025 Mohd. Zafar Iqbal Khan and others ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 109 CWP-6015-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2025 Naveen Kumar Darolla @ Navin Kumar and others ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 220(3) Sunita CWP-28606-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2025 ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 220(5) CWP-1276-2021(O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2025 Roop Ram Nagal and another ...Petitioner(s) State of Haryana and others ...Respondents VERSUS 220(6) CWP-14071-2021(O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2025 Ajay Kumar ...Petitioner(s) State of Haryana and others ...Respondents VERSUS CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 2 220 (2) 220(7) CWP-18905-2020(O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2025 Ravi Punia ...Petitioner(s) State of Haryana and others ...Respondents VERSUS 220(8) Jai Singh CWP-24156-2022(O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2025 ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 220(9) CWP-502-2021(O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2025 Ravi Punia and others ...Petitioner(s) State of Haryana and others ...Respondents VERSUS 220(10) CWP-9827-2022(O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2025 Narender Lather and others ...Petitioner(s) State of Haryana and another ...Respondents VERSUS 237(1) CWP-4709-2024(O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2025 Mahavir Singh ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 3 220 (2) 237(2) CWP-10254-2024(O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2025 Mahavir Singh ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate; Mr. Arjun Dosanj, Advocate; Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate; Mr. Viren Nehra, Advocate; Mr. Akash Gahlawat; Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-6760-2020; CWP-1276-2021 and CWP-9827-2022. Mr. Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-502-2021. Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-24156-2022. Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the applicant(s) in CM-6243-CWP-2025 in CWP-6760-2020. Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate and Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-28606-2018. Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-6015-2025, CWP-4709-2024 and CWP-10254-2024. Mr. Deep Singh Saini, Advocate for Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-14071-2021. Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Sr. Deputy AG Haryana. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate; Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate and 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 4 Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.12 in CWP-4709-2024 and CWP-10254-2024. Mr. Shubham Saroha, Advocate for respondents No. 5 and 6 in CWP-24156-2022. Mr. Chaman Deep, Advocate for Mr. Ivneet Singh Pabla, Advocate for respondent(s) No.4, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15,16 and 17 in CWP-502-2021. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) CM-6243-CWP-2025 CWP-6760-2020 in The prayer in the application is for the impleadment of the applicants as Respondents No. 3 and 4 in the petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, and the applicants are hereby impleaded as Respondents No. 3 and 4 for the limited purpose of pursuing the main case. The amended Memo of Parties is taken on record. CM-6687-CWP-2025 CWP-28606-2018 in The application is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. A copy of the joint seniority list of Sub-Divisional Engineers (Civil) and (Mechanical) of the Public Health Engineering Department as on 01.01.2014, marked as Annexure P-39, and a copy of the joint seniority list of Class-II officers (Civil) and (Mechanical) of the Haryana Public Health Engineering Department as on 01.01.2018, marked as Annexure P-40, are taken on record. 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 5 The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place with proper pagination. Main case: 1. Raising an issue as to whether the exclusions provided under the Punjab Service of Engineers Class II, PWD (Public Health) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1966’)-pertaining to eligibility for promotion to the cadre-are to be interpreted as applicable only if the exclusionary condition is satisfied post-acquisition of the qualification of AMIE/Degree, or whether eligibility is to be determined irrespective of the date of acquisition of such academic qualification. 2. For the sake of reference, the facts are being extracted from CWP-6760-2020, titled Mohd. Zafar Iqbal Khan and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others. 3. The petitioners, who are/were Junior Engineers (Civil) in the Public Health Engineering Department with effect from 11.11.2004, contend that they had obtained permission from the Department to pursue the B. Tech. (Civil) course as regular students (in the case of Petitioners No. 1 to 3) and the AMIE qualification (in the case of Petitioner No. 4). Thereafter, the petitioners completed their course and acquired their respective qualifications in the years 2015 and 2013 respectively. The petitioners then submitted a representation to the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, requesting that having acquired the qualification of B. Tech. (Civil) Engineering Degree/AMIE, they ought to be considered for 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 6 promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer under the panel of degree- holders/AMIE in accordance with the applicable Rules. An agenda note for further promotion was consequently prepared after finding that the petitioners are eligible to compete the said quota for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer. However, certain Junior Engineers (petitioners in CWP-28606-2018 titled as ‘Sunita Vs. State of Haryana and others’) feeling aggrieved in an anticipation of the acceptance of the claim of the present petitioners, approached this Court by filing a writ petition titled Sunita vs. State of Haryana and Others. The grievance raised therein was to the effect that, as per the applicable Service Rules, the prescribed experience for further promotion must be acquired only after the date of acquisition of the respective qualification-viz., the degree/AMIE-and that any experience gained prior to the acquisition of such academic qualification ought not to be counted for computing the prescribed experience as an eligibility for further promotion. 4. Notice of motion in the said writ petition (CWP-28606-2018 titled as ‘Sunita Vs. State of Haryana and others) was issued on 13.11.2018, pursuant whereto the respondent-Department sought an opinion from the office of the Advocate General. However, this Court finds no need to advert to the said opinion at this stage, as the State itself does not place significant reliance upon it. Moreover, such an opinion, even otherwise, cannot be made the subject matter of judicial scrutiny, as it cannot be equated with a decision taken by a competent authority. 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 5. The same thus gives rise to these two sets of writ petitions 7 wherein one set claims that acquisition of the Degree/AMIE is not a pre- condition for counting the experience while the other assert to the contrary. 6. No other factual issue needs to be extracted or referred to since
Decision
the writ petitions do not give rise to any such factual dispute. 7. The question that thus arises for consideration and adjudication before this Court pertains to the interpretation of the qualification prescribed under Rules 6 and 7 and more specifically Sub-Rule 3(ii), of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class II, PWD (Public Health) Rules, 1966. It would thus be appropriate to extract the aforesaid Rule to appreciate the arguments and its counter put forth by the respective parties:- “6. Recruitment to Service. (1) Recruitment to the Service for cadre and ex-cadre post shall be made in the following manner only from the sources listed below in the proportions and the order indicated against a lot of every 40 vacancies: - Proportion Allocation to each source in a lot of 40 vacancies comprising five blocks 1. 2. 3. Direct appointment .. from the Promotion the Punjab members of PWD, Public Health Sectional Officers Service.. Promotion from Draftsmen members of the Draftsmen and Tracers' Service.. I 5 2 II 6 1 III IV V 5 2 5 1 5 2 26 8 2 1 … … 1 … 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 8 4 … 1 1 1 1 4. Promotion from members of the Punjab, PWD Public Health Sectional Officers' Service and the Draftsmen members of the Draftsmen and Service, possessing qualifications prescribed in Appendix 'B' Tracers;' Total 40 8 8 8 8 8 7. Qualifications: No person shall be appointed to in service, unless he:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) in the case of appointment by promotion from source 2 and 3 under rule 6(1),- is a member of the Public Health Sectional Officer (Engineering) service or a Draftsmen member of the Public Health Branch Draftsmen and Tracers services and has put in a service of 10 years. (3) in case of appointment by promotion form source 4 under case 6(1)- (i) is a member of the Punjab P.W.D (Public Health) Sectional Officers (Engineering) Service of a Draftsmen member ices the Public Health Branch, Draftsmen in Tracers Service; (ii) Possesses any of the qualification included in Appendix 'B' and has put in five years service in case he possesses A.M.I.E qualifications and two years service in case he is a degree holder; 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 9 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 9. Appointment by promotion.- (1) Appointment by promotion to the Service shall be made on seniority-cum- merit basis by the Govt. in consultation with the Commission. However, no person shall have any right for promotion merely on the basis of seniority. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 12 Seniority: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) In the case of an officer appointed by transfer as an Assistant Engineer, while normally he would be placed Junior to all the officers appointed directly or by promotion as Assistant Engineers in a particular year, the Govt. may, in the interest of public service and taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, fix his seniority on an adhoc basis; Provided that the seniority thus fixed shall, in no case, be more favorable than the seniority determined after allowing him credit for the period of service rendered by him in previous appointment as Assistant Engineer or on a post the duties of which, in the opinion of Govt. are of equivalent or 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 10 greater responsibility. The decision of Govt. on this point shall be final; Provided further that the provision of proviso to sub-rule (1) shall apply to such an officer if his period of probation is extended. (emphasis supplied) ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER(S): 8. Referring to the aforementioned Rules, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that a plain reading thereof clearly suggests that the requirement of experience, as prescribed, is not pre-qualified by any conjunctive expression which would necessitate the acquisition of prescribed respective qualification as a mandatory prerequisite for computing the experience. It is thus contended that the Rules merely prescribe the possession of the requisite qualification as well as the requisite experience as per the nature of the qualification possessed. 9. In this context, it is argued that while a person possessing the qualification of AMIE is required to have five years’ experience, a person holding a degree in Engineering is required to have only two years’ experience. According to the petitioners, no interpretation other than this plain and literal one would flow from a reading of the Rules. 10. Learned counsel further contends that the respondent-State has, without dispute, never ever prepared any ranking or seniority list based on the date of acquisition of the qualification by the members of the service. 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 11 Had the experience been required to be computed after the date of acquisition of the academic qualification, then, logically, a ranking/seniority list, for determining eligibility for promotion to the next higher post, would have been required to be prepared on that basis. In the absence of any such ranking or gradation list, or any separate register being maintained to that effect, the intent of the State is well established. It is argued that the acquisition of qualification is hence merely a prescribed qualification to be fulfilled and the requirement of experience has to be considered irrespective of the date of the qualification. 11. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the Rules in question, having been notified by the respondent-State in the year 1966, have, ever since their inception, been consistently interpreted and applied in the manner as advanced by the petitioners. The counsel asserts that any deviation now from such consistent interpretation amounts to unsettling the consistency of the Rules which the State is now estopped from adopting at this stage. It is further urged that the interpretation canvassed by the petitioners is not only probable but is the only one plausible, and its continuous and consistent application for nearly 6 decades has rendered it binding. Therefore, even if an alternate interpretation is theoretically and distantly possible, the interpretation consistently adopted and applied must be given precedence as the operative construction. Consequently, the State would be barred from altering its stance to the detriment of those governed by the existing practice. Such long-standing and uninterrupted application of 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 12 the Rules also gives rise to a legitimate expectation in their favour that the same interpretation shall continue to apply. 12. Additionally, it is argued that promotion to the next higher post is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966. In this regard, seniority is governed by Rule 12(5) of the Rules of 1966, which provides that it must be reckoned from the date of entry into service. Since the procedure is not strictly merit-based, the experience itself cannot override the statutorily prescribed seniority. Therefore, even on this principle, it is contended, that the Rules must be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the primacy of seniority over the alleged comparative merit based on the date of acquisition of qualifications by certain employees. 13. In conclusion, the counsel for the petitioners has submitted that settled principles of interpretation require that statutory Rules be construed in a manner that gives effect to their plain and unambiguous language. The expression used in the Rules-"possession of a qualification"-along with the requirement of five years of service in the case of AMIE holders and two years in the case of degree-holders, cannot be read to mean that the period of experience must necessarily follow after the date of acquiring the qualification. The phrase “in case” prefixed to the quantum of required experience must be interpreted in reference to the qualification possessed and cannot be construed as prescribing a condition that the experience must be post-qualification. 14. Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.B. Desai and another Vs. S.K. Khanolker and others reported as 1994 (4) SCT 194 The relevant extract thereof reads thus: “6. The amended Rule of 1988 pertaining to the promotion to the cadre of A.C.Fs. provided that the said post is a selection post and the method of recruitment to the said post is in the ratio of 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. In the case of promotion the eligibility criteria is fixed as under :- (i) "Range Forest Officers with 5 years regular service in the grade and possessing diploma of Forest Rangers Training from Forest Rangers College in India or equivalent. (ii) Unqualified Range Forest Officers trained in Forest School with 10 years regular service in the Grade. Note 1 : The eligibility list for promotion shall be prepared with reference to the date of completion by the officers of the prescribed qualifying service in the respective grade/posts. Note 2 : Unqualified Range Forests Officers shall after promotion as Assistant Conservator 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 14 of Forests would be required to complete successfully refresher courses at FRI&C. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 9. We are unable to agree with this reasoning of the High Court. As noticed above, promotion to the post of ACFOs. is made from the post of RFOs to the extent of 75% of the vacancies. There is no dispute that both the appellants and the first respondent belong to the cadre of RFOs. The only difference between them being that the appellants were promotees in the said cadre while the first respondent was a direct recruit. It is an accepted principle in service jurisprudence that once persons from different sources enter a common cadre, their seniority will have to be counted from the date of their continuous officiation in the cadre to which they are appointed. On facts, there is no dispute that the appellants entered the RFOs' cadre on a date anterior to that of the first respondent, therefore, in the cadre of R.F.Os., the appellants are seniors to the first respondent. However, to be considered for promotion, the Rule required the RFOs. to acquire the eligibility as provided therein. Therefore, the question for consideration is : can the acquisition of an earlier eligibility give an advantage to the first respondent as against the appellants when an avenue for promotion opens in the cadre of 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 15 ACFs. even though at that point of time the appellants had also acquired the required eligibility. We are of the opinion that if at the time of consideration for promotion the candidates concerned have acquired the eligibility, then unless the Rule specifically gives an advantage to a candidate with earlier eligibility, the date of seniority should prevail over the date of eligibility. The Rule under consideration does not give any such priority to the candidates acquiring earlier eligibility and, in our opinion, rightly so. In service law, seniority has its own weightage and unless and until the Rule specifically exclude this weightage of seniority, it is not open to the authorities to ignore the same. 10. The High Court has relied upon the language of Note 1 of the Rule to come to the conclusion that the persons with earlier date of eligibility have a weightage over others solely on the basis that the note required the list of eligibility to be maintained on the basis of the date of acquisition of such eligibility, hence eligibility has preference over seniority. Our reading of the said Note does not persuade us to give any such preference. If the rule did contemplate such advantage, it should have stated so in specific terms. We also do not see any special objective in giving preference to the date of eligibility as against seniority. Eligibility, of course, has a relevant object 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 16 but date of acquisition of eligibility, when both competing persons have the eligibility at the time of consideration can not, in our opinion, make any difference.” (emphasis supplied) 15. Referring to the aforesaid submissions, it is argued, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the reliance placed by the High Court-while interpreting the Rule, to arrive at the conclusion that individuals with an earlier date of eligibility are to be accorded preference over others solely on the basis that a note required the eligibility list to be maintained with reference to the date of acquisition of such eligibility-is misplaced. The Apex Court observed that such a reading, suggesting that eligibility would take precedence over seniority, is unsustainable and that had such an advantage been intended, it would have been explicitly stated in the Rule by the legislature. In the absence of any such express language, no such inference can be drawn. 16. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board vs. S.M. Sharma and Others, reported as (1999) SCC (L&S) 731. The relevant extract from the said decision reads thus: “3. It is obvious from Rule 12 of the Rules, quoted above, that the inter se seniority between Surinder Mohan Sharma and Dinesh Kumar could only be fixed on the basis of continuous length of service in the cadre of Sub-Divisional 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 17 Officers subject to the applicability of any of the clauses under proviso to the said rule. The rule nowhere provides that the seniority is to be fixed on the basis of the date of acquiring the eligibility qualifications. The rule which was before the Full Bench in Ashok Kumar Sehgal case was entirely different than the rule in this case. The High Court became totally oblivious to Rule 12 of the Rules and fell into patent error in allowing the writ petition following the judgment in Ashok Kumar Sehgal case which has no relevance whatsoever to the present case. We, therefore, allow the appeal with costs and set aside the order of the High Court dated 1-2-1993 and dismiss the writ petition filed by Surinder Mohan Sharma before the High Court.” (emphasis supplied) 17. He further refers to a Division Bench’s judgment of this Court in LPA-541-2009 titled as Risal Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and others decided on 01.07.2009 . The operative part thereof reads thus:- “4. The learned Single Judge, inter-alia, relying on judgment of this Court in Ram Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana 1996(6) SLR 450 which in turn refers to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.7294 of 1993 Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Surinder Mohan Sharma and others decided on 14.9.1994, reported in 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 18 1999 SCC (L&S) 731, dismissed the writ petition. Observations in the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court are:- “It is obvious from Rule 12 of the rules, quoted above that the inter se seniority between Surinder Mohan Sharma and Dinesh Kumar could only be fixed on the basis of continuous length of service in the cadre of Sub- Divisional Officers subject to the applicability of any of the clauses under proviso to the said rule." xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, observed that continuous length of service was the basis for inter se seniority and not passing of the qualifying examination and promotion had to be given on that basis. There is no contrary rule, in the present case, about seniority being linked to passing of examination. This being the position, the contesting respondent continued to remain senior to the appellant irrespective of the date on which the qualifying examination was passed. On the date on which the post was to be filled up, the contesting respondent was senior to the appellant and had already passed the appellant and had already passed the examination. His eligibility and seniority could not be ignored, unless the rule specifically provided the passing of eligibility qualification earlier to be the basis for giving preference in promotion. No 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 19 doubt there will be hardship to the appellant who is said to have worked for eight years, the fact remains that there is only one post and the contesting respondent is senior to the appellant and was eligible on the relevant date.” (emphasis supplied) 18. He also refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of T. Valsan Th. LRs. And others Vs. K. Kanagraj and others reported as (2023) 7 SCC 614. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:- “4. Under the said Rules, 80% of the vacancies for the post of Assistant Engineer are to be filled up by ‘promotion’ and 20% by ‘direct recruitment’. The promotion is made among Junior Engineers with three years of regular service for those with a Degree in electrical engineering and seven years of regular service for those with only a Diploma in electrical engineering. A subsequent amendment dated 07.10.1982 was made to Rule 4 read with Paragraph 11 of the Recruitment Rules on the subject of ‘promotion’. Thereafter, the amended Rules earmarked 50% for those Junior Engineers who possess Degree in Engineering with regular service of 3 years. The other 50% was earmarked for those Junior Engineers who possess Diploma with regular service of 7 years. 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 20 Recruitment for Junior Engineers Promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers 1. 50% by promotion 2. Remaining 50% through direct recruitment Desirable qualification for direct recruits: Degree in Electrical & Electronics Engineering Qualification: Essential 1. 20% by Direct Recruitment with degree as qualification 2. 80% by Promotion. Out of this 80% a. 50% for Junior Engineer with 3 years regular service in the grade and possession an Engineering Degree and in Diploma Electronics with experience. Electrical three and years’ b. 50% for Junior Engineer with 7 years regular service in the grade and possessing a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. 5. Significance of the aforesaid is that in order to earn their promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, a Junior Engineer, possessing an Engineering Degree, has to have fewer years of service while in the case of a Diploma holder, the requisite period for service, to be eligible for promotion, was more. We may notice that while working as a Junior Engineer, there is no difference between a Degree holder and a Diploma holder. The moot point, thus, which arises, is whether, for a Diploma holder, who acquires a degree during the course of employment, the period of service as a Junior Engineer prior to acquiring the degree is to be excluded for computing the eligible period of service for promotion to the post of an Assistant Engineer. 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 21 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 10. The High Court held in favour of the Respondents by allowing the writ petition while relying on the judgment in D. Stephen Joseph case. In this behalf, the judgment in M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey was also relied upon by the High Court, which had been cited in D. Stephen Joseph case qua the aspect of interpretation of service rules. The said case opined that when a Rule is quite specific, it would not be proper to count the experience only from the date of acquisition of the superior educational qualification because such an interpretation will violate the purpose to incentivise the employee to acquire higher education. The relevant past practice followed by the Department being to the same effect, the practice of considering the tenure of a Junior Engineer as a whole was said to have acquired the status of a Rule of the department. Simultaneously, it was also observed that since the very Rule, in question, had been interpreted by this Court, it was not open for the CAT to have relied upon the decision qua some other Rules. In the context of the two judgments of the Supreme Court so discussed, it was observed that Shailendra Dania & Ors. case, being the latter judgment of three-Judges, had distinguished itself from the earlier judgment in D. Stephen Joseph case, being the judgment of two-judges, on the true 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 22 interpretation of that Rule, in question. Initial Proceedings Before this Court 12. The two-Judges Bench of this Court, in terms of the order dated 30.01.2018, referred the issue to be considered by a larger Bench. While making the reference, the two-Judges Bench opined that D. Stephen Joseph case apparently was not reflecting the correct opinion as while construing almost identical Rules, a larger (supra) (supra) (supra) Bench of three- Judges had opined to the contrary in Shailendra Dania & Ors. case as also in K.K. Dixit & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. , wherein this Court had opined that the period of experience must be reckoned from the date of acquisition of the Degree. This is how the matter came up before the three-Judges Bench, as now constituted for our consideration in the reference. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 19. On examining the controversy in the context of the arguments urged and the judicial precedents, we can say that actually, the issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in C. Chakkaravarthy & Ors. v. M. Satyavathy, IAS & Ors. Though it is a two-Judges Bench view, the very issue has been examined, which is really sought to be debated before us. It was observed in para 10 as under: 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 23 “There is, in our opinion, considerable merit in that submission of the petitioners. There is no gainsaying that this Court has unequivocally declared that promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers in the service shall be on the basis of merit and merit alone and that seniority of the candidates cannot be taken as an input for determining such merit. This Court has also very clearly rejected the procedure followed by the Government whereby the date on which the candidate had acquired his degree qualification was taken as a determining factor. That being so, and given the large number of candidates eligible for consideration the Government was entitled to adopt the method of restricting the zone of consideration based on the number of vacancies. Inasmuch as the Government relied upon the DoPT guidelines for achieving that objective it committed no fault. The question, however, is whether the Government could draw-up a list of eligible candidates not by reference to the length of service in the cadre but by reference to the date on which the candidates acquired the eligibility which, as noticed earlier, was itself dependent upon the date on which the candidate acquired the degree qualification. Since, however, the acquisition 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 24 of a degree qualification itself was not based on any consistently uniform criterion, test or procedure, the date on which such a qualification was acquired and resultantly the date on which the candidate attained their eligibility was also bound to be anything but uniform and non-discriminatory. As between the date of acquiring eligibility and the date of entering service as a Section Officer/Junior Engineer the latter was, in our opinion, a more intelligible, fair and reasonable yardstick to be applied for drawing-up the list of eligible candidates by the review DPC. Inasmuch as the review DPC relied upon the date of acquiring eligibility as the basis for preparation of the list of eligible candidates, it committed a mistake which needs to be corrected.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 22. A three Judges Bench of this Court in Chandravathi P.K. & Ors. (supra) referred to a number of earlier judgments on the issue, including D. Stephen Joseph (supra), Satpal Antil v. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 419, Anil Kumar Gupta (supra), A.K. Raghumani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath (2000) 4 SCC 30 and Pramod K. Pankaj v. State of Bihar (2004) 3 SCC 723 and quoted with approval of the last of these judgments. The 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 25 principle laid down is that in the absence of any statutory provision or rule made thereunder or under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, once an incumbent is appointed to the post according to rules, their seniority has to be counted from the date of appointment. 23. In Shailendra Dania & Ors. (supra) case, it was noticed in para 36 that the past practice would be a relevant aspect while construing the service rule. The aforementioned judgment distinguished itself from D. Stephen Joseph (supra) case on the ground that the interpretation of the rules would be determined on a case-to-case basis, and the wordings of the rules as well as past practices are important criteria. Similarly, in the present case, the Electricity Department has a past practice of considering the years of service prior to the acquisition of the degree. 24. The principle of past practice being of significance has also been noticed in M.B. Joshi case. This judgment also discusses the aspect where there are two channels for promotion (as in the present case) and illustrates that if the total time period of service was not to be counted, then there could not be said to be any incentive to acquire 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 26 the higher degree except as an academic pursuit. The incentive is that if you acquire a higher degree as compared to a diploma, you come into a channel which entitles consideration, albeit on merit, in a fast lane with less number of years of service required in the cadre. 25. In our view, one of the important aspects is the wording of the Rule itself. According to the Rules, 50 percent of the promotion quota is from Junior Engineers with three years of regular service in the grade “and” possessing a degree in Electrical Engineering. The Rule does not say from which date the time period of regular service has to be counted, but there is a twin requirement of three years of regular service as also a degree. As against this, the second scheme of 50 percent promotion from Junior Engineers uses the word “with” seven years of regular service in the grade and possessing a diploma in Electrical Engineering. Thus, the distinction is between the diploma holder and the degree holder and the period of service rendered as a Junior Engineer without any distinction between the years served prior to or after having obtained the degree. Accepting the plea of the Appellant would amount to insertion into the requirement of the Rules, which is not stipulated. Further, this is how 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 27 the Rule has been understood by the Department, the framers of the Rules, and accordingly, the Rules have been uniformly implemented in the Electricity Department over a period of time. In view of the above, due weightage must be given to the view of the framers of the Rules. Conclusion: 26. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the view taken by the High Court opining that there is no distinction between the time period served before or after the acquisition of the degree so long as the degree is acquired and is the basis for consideration of the promotion. We are, thus, of the view that for all the aforesaid reasons for the Department in question, the view taken in D. Stephen Joseph is held to be applicable law, and we answer the reference accordingly.” (emphasis supplied) 19. Counsel for the petitioners has further made a reference to certain specific pleaded averments in the writ petition and submits that in the reply filed by the respondent-State, the said pleadings are not disputed and are rather admitted to be correct. The same are tabulated as under:- 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 28 Averment in the petition Reply Para No. 23(E) That while issuing notice of That the judgments motion in CWP No. 28606 of mentioned in para No.23 2018* reliance has been placed E. of the writ petition are on the judgment of Hon'ble not relevant since the Supreme Court in the case of Rules stated in these are Parveen Gera and a judgment different than the Punjab passed by the Hon'ble Division Service of Engineers Bench in LPA No. 1515 of 2015. Class-II PWD (Public A copy of the judgment passed in Health) Rules, which is the case of Parveen Gera is applicable in case of the being annexed herewith as petitioners. Annexure P-18 and a copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in LPA No. 1515 of 2015 is being annexed herewith as Annexure P-19. 23(F) That in the case of Parveen Gera That the rules stated in the Rules were entirely different Parveen Gera mentioned in which it was mentioned that in para No.23F. of the the eligibility for consideration writ petition are not for promotion from AMIE/BE applicable here since shall be determined from the date these are different than of qualifying such examination the Punjab Service of and a ranking list was required Engineers Class-II PWD to be prepared. The judgment (Public Health) Rules, rendered by the Hon'ble Division which is applicable in Bench in LPA No. 1515 of 2015 case of the petitioners. also pertains to the same Rules which required a ranking list to be prepared. 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 29 23(G) That the Hon'ble Supreme Court That the ruling of Hon'ble of India in case titled as "R.B. Supreme Court stated in Desai Vs. S.K. Khanolker" para No.23G. of the writ reported as 1999 (4) SCT 194 petition is similar as has held that after attaining defined in the Punjab eligibility every candidate will Service of Engineers become eligible and only Class-II PWD (Public seniority will prevail and the Health) Rules. Once a date of eligibility will be member fulfills eligibility Irrelevant unless the Rules criteria for promotion he provide otherwise. It is an is considered suitable for accepted principle in service promotion irrespective of jurisprudence that once persons the date of eligibility but from different sources enter a strictly on the basis on common cadre, their seniority "Seniority-cum-Merit". will have to be counted from the date of their continuous officiation in the cadre. Once at the time of consideration for promotion the candidates concerned have acquired the eligibility, the date of seniority should prevail over the date of eligibility. A copy of the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is being annexed herewith as Annexure P-20. 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 30 23(I) That the Hon'ble Division Bench in That the judgment LPA No. 541 of 2009 has observed stated in para No.231. that the seniority can only be fixed of the writ petition is on the basis of continuous length partially applicable in of service. A copy of the judgment this case because passed by the Hon'ble Division suitability for Bench is being annexed herewith promotion has to be as Annexure P-22. In this case the decided as per Rule Hon'ble Division Bench has 9(1) of Punjab Service observed that eligibility and of Engineers Class-II seniority cannot be ignored unless PWD (Public Health) the Rule specifically provided the Rules, which is on the passing of eligibility qualification basis of "Seniority- earlier to be the basis for giving cum-Merit". the preference in promotion. *CWP-28606-2018 is the writ petition filed by the opponent. 20. Adverting to the aforementioned submissions, learned State counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering a catena of judgments-including the one rendered in Shailendra Dania and Others v. S.P. Dubey and Others, reported as (2007) 5 SCC 535-arrived at the conclusion that no distinction can be drawn between the period of service rendered before or after the acquisition of the degree, so long as the degree is acquired before consideration for promotion. It is further pointed out that the said matter had been referred to a Larger Bench after certain contradictions were noticed in judicial pronouncements, particularly when juxtaposed with the earlier decision in D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India, reported as (1997) 4 SCC 753. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforementioned 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 31 pronouncement, reiterated D. Stephen Joseph (supra) as laying down the applicable law on the subject. ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT-STATE OF HARYANA 21. Responding to the submissions made by the petitioners, learned State counsel fairly concedes that the contention advanced regarding the Department not maintaining any ranking or gradation list based on the date of acquisition of the qualification is not in dispute. She also candidly and fairly admits that, ever since the notification of the Rules, the same had been applied in the manner suggested and argued by the petitioners. However, she submits that such an application and interpretation of law-albeit long- standing-may not necessarily be the correct interpretation in law and State is not bound by the same. 22. She further submits that despite the aforesaid two aspects not being disputed by the respondent-State, it is a settled position of law that a statutory provision must be construed and applied lawfully, and that an erroneous, incorrect, or perverse construction, even if consistently followed, cannot be deemed to confer a right upon any individual. The State would not be precluded from undertaking a correct interpretation, application, and enforcement of the Rules as per the law. 23. With respect to the reliance placed by the petitioners on judgments asserting that the length of service is the sine qua non and the date of acquisition of qualification is immaterial, the State submits that the same are not applicable. She submits that in the matter of R.B. Desai (supra), 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 32 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was interpreting the Bombay Forest Officers Service Rules, 1988, where the relevant provision required "five years' regular service in the grade and possession of a Diploma of Forest Rangers." She contends that the conjunctive term “and” used in that Rule is markedly different from the expression “in case” employed in the Rules of 1966 under consideration herein. 24. She further draws attention to a similar statutory position under the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974, and argues that when the statutory language in question is materially distinct, no reliance can be legally placed on interpretations given to provisions under different enactments, especially when the provisions are not pari materia. Much emphasis is laid by learned State counsel on the use of the expression “in case” prior to the prescription of the qualifications, i.e., possession of AMIE or an engineering degree. It is submitted that this expression mandates that the requisite experience can only be considered from the date of acquisition of the prescribed qualification. 25. Alternatively, it is submitted that even if the Rule is examined from a different perspective, a meaningful reading would reveal that it prescribes the possession of a qualification, as referred to in Appendix ‘B’. Since holding of the degree is already a requirement under Appendix ‘B’, the number of years of experience prescribed cannot be taken into account unless and until the said qualification has been acquired. In support of her submissions, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 33 Court in Shailendra Dania and Others v. S.P. Dubey and Others, (2007) 5 SCC 535. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads thus: “38.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. When 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 34 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 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 35 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. 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 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 36 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. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 40. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 26. It is also contended that it is a matter of common understanding that a person possessing higher qualifications is likely to have superior 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 37 technical knowledge and a broader perspective, and therefore, the services rendered by such a person—even while discharging the same duties—would qualitatively differ. 27. Learned State counsel further emphatically argues that the objective of providing accelerated promotion to a person with better qualifications is to incentivize employees towards career advancement and the acquisition of enhanced skills. She submits that if the date of acquisition of the higher degree or qualification is disregarded in the evaluation for promotion, the very purpose of such incentivization would be defeated, thereby frustrating the legislative intent behind the Rule. 28. However, when questioned by the Court as to the grammatical usage and interpretative application of the conjunction "in case" as employed in the Rule, she referred to the meaning ascribed in the Cambridge Dictionary, wherein it is clearly stated that "we don’t use 'in case' to mean 'if.'" This, she submits, reinforces the contention that the phrase "in case" is not to be understood as a conditional expression synonymous with "if," but rather as denoting a scenario or contingency that must be satisfied before the subsequent condition (such as computation of experience) can come into effect. ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENTS (PETITIONER IN CWP-28606- 2018) 29. Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate for Intervener and for the petitioner in CWP-28606-2018 makes a reference to the amendment notified by the respondents on 29.03.2004, which is extracted under:- 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 38 “2. In the Punjab Service of Engineers Class II, PWD (Public Health) Rules 1966 in rule 6.- (a) for sub-rule (1) the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely.- "(1) Recruitment to the Service for cadre and ex-cadre posts shall be made,- (a) 50% by direct recruitment; and (b) 50% by promotion from the following categories- (i) from the members of the Haryana PWD Public Health Junior Engineers (Engineering) Service. …………..30% (ii) from Draftsmen members of the Draftsmen and Tracers Service……………..6% (iii) from members of the Haryana PWD Public Health Junior Engineers Service and Draftsmen members of the Draftsmen and Tracers Service, possessing qualifications, prescribed in Appendix ‘B’ ………….14%” 30. He contends that the aforesaid amendment prescribes possession of the qualification prescribed as Appendix ‘B’ while re- assigning the quota for promotion to the respective categories. The requirement of qualification being possessed having been re-iterated, the same has to be read as a pre-requisite for acquisition of an experience. 220 (2) 31. CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 39 Learned counsel also places reliance in the matter of Sukhdev Singh and others vs. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others reported as 2018 (4) SCT 716. The relevant part thereof reads thus:- “25. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate for some of the writ petitioners, who are pressing for counting 5 years service after acquiring A.M.I.E./B.E. qualification has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Parveen Gera vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others, (Civil Appeal No.7076 of 2010) decided on 13.9.2017, which involved interpretation of Regulation 9 of Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Recruitment Regulations, 1965, as applicable to Haryana State Electricity Board. In the said case also, similar clause for 12 ½ % quota was in question. The Apex Court while interpreting the said clause laid emphasis on the word “as such” mentioned in the said clause and held as under:- In our opinion, the clarification is worded in such a manner that it leaves no manner of doubt that the eligibility criteria have to be counted only from the date when the AMIE qualification is attained. It is only the experience which is obtained after passing the AMIE/BE examination which can be taken into consideration. This 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 40 clarification was never challenged and, therefore, in our opinion, the learned Division Bench erred in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 26. The Apex Court ruled that the experience which is obtained after passing A.M.I.E./B.E. examination is to be taken into consideration. 27. After making a conjoint reading of notification dated 12.10.1993 (Annexure P1), which is issued in exercise of powers under Section 79(c) of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, amending Regulation 9 with the Guidelines dated 27.2.1989 (Annexure P5) as superseded by the Guidelines dated 20.10.1993 (Annexure P6), we are of the view that the guidelines can never supersede the Regulation. The guidelines dated 20.10.1993 (Annexure P6) were never issued in the exercise of powers Section 79(c) of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. At the most these guidelines can explain what is laid down in the Regulation 9. The result will be that the Guidelines so far as these are contrary to Regulation 9, have to be ignored, being in violation of Regulation 9. 28. Now, 9(1)(b)(ii) provides that amongst the Engineering Subordinates of Generation Cadre possessing A.M.I.E./B.E. qualification and having 5 years experience “as such”, said 12 ½% promotions are to be made. “As such” word 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 41 has been interpreted by the Apex Court as 5 years service after acquiring A.M.I.E./B.E. qualification. The department, if it wanted, in place of words “as such” could use word 5 years service as Junior Engineer or Engineering Subordinates. But specific words “as such” have been used which relate to the date of A.M.I.E./B.E. qualification. This was so interpreted by the Apex Court in Parveen Gera’s case (supra) 29. Therefore, we hold that for the purpose of accelerated promotion under clause 9(1)(b)(ii) Engineering Subordinates of Generation Cadre must have 5 years service as such i.e. from the date when he acquire A.M.I.E./B.E. qualification. The purpose of Rule is clear that the Engineering Subordinates, who are Diploma Holders, must have 5 years experience after they acquire A.M.I.E./B.E. to become eligible for out of turn promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 33. We are of the view that it was fault of the department that they did not adhere to the guidelines of preparing ranking list on 1st day of January of each year. They did such exercise for the first time on 15.3.2006. For the negligence on the part of the department, officers are not to suffer. If the department prepared the ranking list late, they could always prepare the same in terms of Clause 2 of 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 42 notification dated 20.10.1993 (Annexure P6) on 1st day of January of each year. Meaning thereby that the Engineering Subordinates who possess such qualification earlier in time have to be ranked senior and those who possess such qualification in the next year upto 1st January are to be ranked junior. The reason is that Engineering Subordinates, who acquire the eligibility of qualification of A.M.I.E./B.E. with 5 years service earlier, are more meritorious having acquiring the qualification earlier than their senior, who either could not qualify A.M.I.E./B.E. examination or did not dare to take such examination. Therefore, after having acquired the qualification and experience later, they cannot steal a march over their juniors who have already acquired such qualification and are to be placed in ranking earlier than their seniors for the purpose of accelerated promotion in 12 ½% quota.” (emphasis supplied) REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER(S) 32. In response to the above, counsel for the petitioners reiterates his submissions and submits that the reliance on judgment in the matter of Sukhdev Singh and others (supra) is misplaced since the service rules in that case provided for the preparation of a ranking list based on the date of acquisition of qualifications. The judgment is thus distinguishable from the bare reading of the statutory provisions in the Rules of 1966. 220 (2) 33. CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 43 He further submits that in so far as reliance on the judgment of Shailendra Dania (supra) is concerned, the issue was referred to a larger bench which did not accept the said view and has rather reiterated the law, as is argued by them. 34. No other argument has been raised nor any other judgment has been cited by the respective parties. 35. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended with the present writ petition and the judgments relied by them with their able assistance. 36. It is evident from a reading of the statutory provisions that, under Source No. 4 of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1966, an individual seeking appointment in Class II service must be a member of the PWD Public Health Junior Engineers (Engineering) Service. Sub-Clause (ii) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 prescribes that a person must possess one of the qualifications listed in Appendix ‘B’, ‘and’ has put in 05 years of service in the case of possessing AMIE qualification and 02 years of service in the case of holding a degree. 37. The rules of interpretation give precedence to the Golden Rule which prescribes that a meaning which flows from a plain reading of the statute should be given first preference unless such interpretation leads to conclusions that are wholly absurd, are contrary to the object of the statute, lead to arbitrariness or render other clauses otiose and dead letter. Being a settled position in law as above, the rule thus needs to be examined in its 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 44 plain meaning. The relevant clause which requires interpretation is thus extracted:- “Possessing any of the qualifications included in Appendix-‘B’ and has put in five years of service in case he possesses AMIE qualification and two years service in case he is a degree holder” (emphasis supplied) 38. The grammatical structure of the provision, specifically the use of the conjunctions "in case" and "and," requires careful interpretation. Grammatically, conjunctions are words that connect other words, phrases or clauses. While ‘and’ is used as a ‘co-ordinating conjunction’ connecting equal rank clauses, the conjunction ‘in case’ is used when a contingent event or precaution takes place. This takes into account an eventuality which is probable but may not be certain. Hence, the use of the expression ‘in case’ reflects a proactive definite step to be taken on occurrence of the eventuality while contemplating a future event, which may or may not happen. The conjunction ‘in case’ has been used between two requirements i.e. ‘experience’ and ‘qualification’. Thus the contingent future event which may or may not happen is the acquisition of the qualification of AMIE or degree and thus provides for the proactive requirement on happening of one or more eventualities. Thus comes the requirement of 5 years and two years experience for AMIE/Degree respectively. The use of ‘and’ following the qualification requirement included in Appendix ‘B’ indicates that both 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 45 conditions (qualification and experience) must be fulfilled simultaneously, forming the dual pre-requisites for fulfilling eligibility. Appendix ‘B’ is only the recognition of course and the academic institution which provide the said course. The appendix is thus not prescribing the qualification but recognizing respective qualification by specific institutes. 39. Had the intent of the legislature been to consider only the experience acquired post-qualification, the language would have reflected that intention by specifying the experience requirement as applicable only after the qualification is obtained. In the absence of such wording, it can be safely inferred that the legislature did not intend to impose a post- qualification experience requirement. Thus, the experience prescribed by the statute is to be considered irrespective of the time of the acquisition of the qualification. Illustratively the language would be like:- “Possesses any of the qualification of AMIE/Degree included in Appendix ‘B’ and has acquired 5 years/2 years experience respectively as such. Or Possesses any …………………………… and has acquired 5 years/2 years experience respectively thereafter. Or Possesses 5 years/2 years experience on acquiring qualification of AMIE/Degree as included in Appendix ‘B’. The same are merely some of the illustration which 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 46 demonstrate the probable expression and conjunctions that would have been used if the legislature intended to count only the experience acquired after the qualifying exam” 40. The term "in case" thus has to be understood as referring to an eventuality, rather than the timing of that eventuality. In this context, the prescription of the degree and 05 years of experience applies to situations where an individual holds an AMIE qualification and it does not establish a pre-condition for possessing experience. To adopt the respondents' interpretation would misapply the statute and read into it conditions that the legislature did not intend. 41. Further, the respondents themselves, by their previous application and understanding of the statutory provisions, have demonstrated an understanding consistent with the interpretation advocated by the petitioners. The citation from the Cambridge Dictionary, relied on by the State, itself clarifies that "in case" does not equate to "if," further supports this reading. 42. Despite agreeing with the respondents that an erroneous or incorrect applications of the statute should not give rise to legitimate expectations, this court holds that the plain language of the provision does not imply that any illegal, perverse, or erroneous construction was being previously applied. The interpretation made by the petitioners is not only plausible but also consistent with the legislative intent. It is not within the 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 47 discretion of the authorities to reinterpret the provision in a manner that contradicts the established application which cannot out-rightly be termed as an erroneous or wrong interpretation. 43. The consistent application of the provision over nearly six decades by the State further supports the court's conclusion. The Court would ordinarily uphold the interpretation that aligns with this consistent understanding which reflects the true legislative intent and would not be dismissive of the same merely because some ingenuous argument or interpretation is subsequently proposed. 44. In its foregoing analysis, this Court draws further strength from the judgment cited by the petitioners, which assert that when the language of a statute does not explicitly stipulate that experience can only be counted towards eligibility if it is acquired post-qualification, the plain reading of the statute must prevail. It is not appropriate to infer a remote, cascading conclusion only to grant a benefit that would not ordinarily accrue to the respondents. 45. Therefore, I hold that Clause (ii) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1966 mandates that an individual must possess 05 years or 02 years of experience, without requiring that such experience be acquired only after the qualification of AMIE/Degree respectively has been obtained, in order to be eligible for promotion. 46. The reliance on the judgment of Sukhdev Singh and others (supra) is clearly misplaced as the plain language of the same is materially 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 48 different and it uses the expression ‘as such’ after the qualification followed by experience. Thus the stage for experience had been prescribed. 47. In so far as the reliance on second judgment, in the matter of Shailendra Dania and others (supra) is concerned, the same view was referred to a Larger Bench and the view did not find much favour. 48. Additionally, the respondents' argument that individuals with higher academic qualifications perform qualitatively different work fails not only because it is unsupported by the Rules but also because no evidence has been presented showing that the responsibilities and duties performed by individuals with AMIE or degree qualifications differ in any substantive manner from those the experience prior to holding of the qualification. There is no indication that individuals holding these qualifications are discharging different functions while working in similar positions without such qualifications. Furthermore, the respondents do not dispute that holding a qualification is not a pre-requisite for carrying out the duties of a Junior Engineer. 49. The legislature has deemed it sufficient that a person can serve as a Junior Engineer regardless of whether they hold an AMIE or degree qualification. The qualification is intended only as an incentive to encourage employees to pursue higher academic qualifications, by providing expeditious promotion. It follows that the experience gained in the role of a Junior Engineer is independent of the possession of such qualifications. The acquisition of a qualification is not intended to disadvantage those who do 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 49 not possess it. Rather, it is aimed at rewarding individuals for academic pursuits and incentivizing their career progression. Consequently, a negative interpretation of the statutory provisions, as suggested by the respondents, cannot be sustained. 50. Considering the matter from all perspectives, I find that the stance taken by the respondents is not founded on a correct and proper reading and interpretation of the relevant statutory provision. 51. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: a. The respondent-State is directed to consider the cases of eligible persons in accordance with the applicable statutory rules, based on their qualification and prescribed experience and without imposing the condition that such experience must be acquired after the date of acquisition of the qualification. b. The respondent(s) are further directed to re-examine and re-determine the cases of individuals who have been wrongly excluded from promotion, in light of the interpretation above, and pass appropriate orders in this regard within three months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. c. In the event of such person being found eligible, he be granted the promotion w.e.f. the date he was ignored 220 (2) CWP-6760-2020 (O&M) and connected cases 50 although benefits be given notionally from the said date and actually from the date of expiry of 03 months of receipt of a certified copy of this order, as directed above. 52. All pending civil misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 03.05.2025 Mangal Singh (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No