The qualification prescribed was thus.
By the Judgment and order under appeal the Division Bench companysidered the qualifications of the appellants for appointment to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer having regard to what the said Entry 6 of the Schedule prescribed during the period between 20th May 1977 and 11th August 1982.
Appeals were filed by the respondents.
The order of the learned Judge directed the State Government to fill the vacancies in the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer by making a selection from amongst persons who were eligible for companysideration at the time when the vacancies occurred.
The appellants filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High Court praying that the State Government be directed to companysider their cases for promotion to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer and, if found suitable, to be so promoted with effect from the date upon which the vacancies occurred.
On 17th February 1984 the State Government issued an order banning promotions to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer in the Mines and Geology Department for the period 20th May 1977 to 31st March 1983.
The experience of five years that was prescribed was only in respect of diploma holders.
On 11th August 1982, the State Government issued a numberification amending the said Entry 6 of the Schedule and thereby, in companyumn 5, the words Assistant Mechanical Engineer were deleted.
As we read the said Entry 6 of the Schedule, the qualification that an Assistant Drilling Engineer or an Assistant Mechanical Engineer had to possess for being promoted to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer was a a diploma in Mechanical Engineering and b five years experience of drilling or of maintenance of drilling machines.
Neither before the Division Bench judgment number in the Special Leave Petitions have the appellants stated what work they did from time to time since their appointment as Assistant Mechanical Engineers.
The learned Single Judge held, inter alia, that the appellants were eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer as they possessed the necessary qualification and experience.
That they did number so aver even after the Division Bench dismissed their writ petitions on the very ground must be companysidered significant.
The appellants also challenged the appointment of the third and fourth respondents to these appeals to take charge of the vacant posts of Deputy Drilling Engineer on the ground that these respondents were much junior to them.
Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appellants writ petitions.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
On the same day, the appellants were promoted to the post of Mechanical Engineer.
two fold educational and practical experience.
10451 52 of 1988 was appointed an Assistant Engineer in the State Woolen Mill at Bikaner on 18th July 1972.
On 25th September 1973 the appellant Himmat Singh in S.L.P C No.11711 of 1988 was appointed an Assistant Mechanical Engineer in the Mines and Geology Department.
The learned judge rejected the companytention on behalf of the respondents that the amendment to the said Entry 6 of the Schedule was retrospective in operation and held, therefore, that it did number debar the appellants from being companysidered for promotion against vacancies existing before 6th November 1982.
Reliance was also placed upon a Manual published by the Department of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, regarding the functions and duties of its organisation.
The Division Bench rejected the companytention on behalf of the appellants that the experience of five years prescribed thereby was only for diploma holders and there was numberrequirement of any experience of drilling or of maintenance of drilling machines for degree holders.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.1988 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeals No.
Pending the disposal of the appeals, on 17th December 1986, the third and fourth respondents were promoted to the post of the Deputy Drilling Engineer upon a temporary basis which appointments, we are told at the Bar, were companyfirmed on 19th December 1987 .
material handling equipments and other drilled mining machineries.
The appellant Bhagirathdan in S.L. Ps C Nos.
2946 47 of 1992.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The nature of duties that an Assistant Mechanical Engineer would have to perform was also stated in the pamphlet, thus he would have responsibility for all the machines and other mining equipments of the department at various working sites and in various stores under his charge and maintenance and repairs of all the equipments and machineries of mining and prospecting under his charge.
2948 of 1992.
The Division Bench found that the appellants had number averred in their writ petitions that they had five years experience of drilling or of maintenance of drilling machines on 30th September 1977, when the two posts of Deputy Drilling Engineer fell vacant, or before the amendment of the said Entry 6 of the Schedule by deleting the words Assistant Mechanical Engineer there from.
On 7th March 1984 the writ petitions were allowed.
It was companytended before us by learned companynsel for the appellants that it was clear from the said Entry 6 of the Schedule that there was numbernecessity of five years experience of drilling or of maintenance of drilling machines in the case of degree holders such as the appellants.
Reliance was placed upon a pamphlet issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in respect of the recruitment of an Assistant Mechanical Engineer.
The said Entry read thus Sl.
S.K. Iyer, Manu Mridul, R.S. Suri NP and S.K Jain for the Appellant.
199 and 203 of 1984.
Between 20th May 1977 and 11th August 1982 promotions to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer were regulated by Entry 6 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service Rules, 1960, as amended on 20th May 1977.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHARUCHA, J. Leavae to appeal granted.
It stated that the candidates qualification should be a degree in Mechanical Engineering and three yearsexperience in maintenan ce and repair of companypressor, tractors.
Arun Jaitley, Aruneshwar Gupta, Indra Makwana and Rajendra Mal Tatia for the Respondents.
Upon being declared surplus therein he was appointed an Assistant Mechanical Engineer in the Mines and Geology Department of the State of Rajasthan the first respondent on 12th December 1975.
Such an averment would have shown with precision whether or number they had five years experience of maintenance of drilling machines.
By that judgment the Division Bench set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge upon the writ petitions filed by the appellants in these two appeals and dismissed the same.
