JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:—These two appeals and the sister writ petition raise the same point of law, seeking to derive succour from a ruling of this Court in the State of Gujarat v. C.G. Desai, (1974) 2 SCR 255 which we are inclined to think is distinguishable because unlike in that decision the weightage which is objected to as violative of Article 14 is based upon a rule framed under proviso to Article 309 which we regard as reasonable and in the circumstances fair.

2. We are upholding the decision of the High Court in P Bhavanarayana v. D.V.Prabhakarasarma, L.P.A. Nos. 942 of 1974 and 193, 194 and 858 of 1975 (Andh Pra) where there is an elaborate discussion of the questions of law raised and reference to the precedents which have a bearing on the point debated before us. We wholly agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court and that is why we are not inclined to elaborate over again the reason for rejecting the submissions of the appellants.

3. Briefly, the case turns on the valfdity of a certain rule in the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Subordinate Service Rules. There are two sources of initial recruitment to the service, those who possess diplomas are recruited to the posts of Supervisors, those who possess engineering degree are recruited to the posts of Junior Engineers. The fact is that by and large they discharge the same functions and it is wrong to say that there is no functional parity as between Supervisors and Junior Engineers. However, the academic superiority of the Junior Engineers is also a reality and has been recognised in the rules framed. The promotion to the next higher rank is to the post of Assistant Engineers in the state Engineering service and for the purpose of promotion to that rank, according to the rules, it was necessary for a degree holder like a Junior Engineer to put in five years of service while for a non-degree holder, that is a diploma holder like a supervisor, a minimum service of ten years was prescribed. This caused considerable hardship to the Supervisors and, therefore, having a second look at the whole situation. Government by G.O.Ms. No. 893 framed the following rule which may read here:

"Note (2) Supervisors who acquire, while in service. B.E.M.I.E. (India) qualification shall be entitled to count 50% of their service rendered as Supervisor prior to acquisition of such qualification subject to a maximum limit of vears as if it had been in the post of Junior Engineers or the purpose of consideration for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Engineer from Junior Engineers and subject to the following conditions:-

(1) They should render a minimum service of one year after acquisition of B.E. or A.M.I.E. (India) qualification:

(2) They should be considered to have been placed below the list of the Junior Engineers of the year after giving weightage as indicated above.

(3) They should put in a total service of 5 years as Junior Engineer inclusive of the period given as weightage.

(4) The benefit of weightage given above shall be given effect for the purpose of all selections that are made by Public Service Commission pertaining to the years from 2nd January 1963 onwards till 28th February, 1972."

4. It is apparent from this new rule that nothing unreasonable or shocking nothing arbitrary or violative of fair play is done because what has been prescribed is that if a Supervisor acquires A.M.I.E. while in service and renders service as Supervisor he is given credit as Junior Engineer for half the period off his service as Supervisor subject to a maximum of four years. It is common ground that A.M.I.E. is equal to an engineering degree. Thus virtually the Supervisor acquires an engineering degree and discharges functions which are substantially similar to that of a Junior Engineer yet there is inequality of opportunity. The Government has tried to mitigate the hardship by framing this rule which accords to such new Junior Engineers or upgraded Supervisors the benefit of