H. C. SHARMA AND OTHERS. v. .MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND OTHERS

Now we are left only with prayers 4, 6 and 7 in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 about which rightly no argument was advanced. by Mr. V. M. Tarkunde. Prayer No. 4. is to declare the petitioners Graduate c Engineers as a separate category amongst Junior Engineers and give them equal quota like the Diploma holders Junior Engineers out of the SP% quota for promotion as Assistant Engineerf.. This cannot be. done except by carxing out two classes in the same category of Junior Engineers on the basis merely of their qualffication which is not permissible in law though the. creation of selection grade in the D same category on the basis of merit and or seniority is well known and permissible. The Junior Engineers do the same kind of work and bear the same responsibilities whatever their qualification, whether they are Degree .hold~rs or Diploma holders. In this connection it will be useful to note what this Court has observed in E S.B. Patwardhan v. Maharashtra. (1) viz ;

"Though drawn from two different sources . the direct recruits and prombtees constitute in the instant case a single integrated cadre. They discharge identical functions, bear similar responsibilities and acquire an F equal amount of experience in the respective assignments. And yet clause (iii) of Rule 8 provides that probationers recruited during any year shall in ·a bunch be treated as seniors to the promotees confirmed in that' year . . . . This formula gives to the direct recruit even G ., > the benefit of his one year's period" of training and another year's period of probation for the purposes of seniority and denies to promotees the benefit of their long and valuable experience. If there was some intelligible groun'd for this differentiation bearing nexus with efficiency in. H

(I) [1977) 3 S.C.R. 775,

412 StiI'!UlMll COURT REPORTS [1983) ~ s.c.!l. public services it might perhaps have been possible to A sustain such a classification.

We think that the ratio of this observation applies to the facts of this, case in regard to prayer No. 4 and that the petitioners in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 are not entitled to be treated as a separate class of Junior E.ngineers. B Prayer No. 6 is to declare that the petitioners Graduate Junior Engineers in the service of respondent 1 are entitied to be put on par with their counterparts in other Gove.rnment departments, and prayer No.' 7 is to direct respondent I to grant revised pay scale of Rs. 550- 900 to the petitioners in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 and other c Graduate ·Junior Engineers as in the case of Graduate Junior Engineers in Class Ill ser.vice in other Government Departments. This scale of Rs. 550-900 is of the selection grade of Junior Engineers There are 13 selection grade posts in the Engineering Service (Civil) of respondent !. We think that the petitioners are not entitled to D these two reliefs also ·

The result is that Writ Petition 221 of 1979 fails and is \. dismissed with costs of the contesting private respondents and Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 is allowed in part in regard to prayers 1, 2, 3 and 5 as indicated above and is otherwise dismissed. The contes- E ting respondents in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 shall pay the peti- tioners' costs. There will be one set of Advocates' fees in both· the Writ Petitions.

H.S.K. ' W.P, No. 221 purify allowed and W.P. No. 1194 dismissed. "