JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J.:—Special leave in all the matters granted.

The appellant, D. K. Sahni, began his service career in 1966 as an Assistant Mining Engineer and rose to the position of Chief Mining Engineer on his promotion to that post in 1980. The Board of Directors of the Company at its 143rd meeting on 22nd March, 1983 resolved to upgrade three posts of Chief Mining Engineers to the level of Deputy General Managers. At that point of time amongst the Chief Mining Engineers of the company, the appellant in the order of seniority ranked after (1) A. H. Dharmadhikari (2) S. Kumar (3) G. N. Misra and (4) T. N. Prasad. A high powered Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was appointed to select candidates from amongst Chief Mining Engineers for placement in the upgraded posts of Deputy General Managers. This Committee interviewed candidates and made its selection. Meanwhile A. H. Dharmadhikari was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager in the vacancy arising on the demise of K.V.P. Singh. Pursuant to the selection made by the DPC the appellant was promoted and appointed as Deputy General Manager in preference to his seniors. S. Kumar and others, therefore, filed a Writ Petition No. 2533 of 1983 challenging .the appointment of the appellant. However, in the meantime S. Kumar was promoted in due course as Deputy General Manager whereupon he withdrew the Writ Petition. The other two, G. N. Misra and T. N. Prasad represented to the Board pointing out that the appellant did not possess the requisite educational qualification for appointment as Chief Mining Engineer and consequently he could not be promoted to the next higher post of Deputy General Manager. That representation was rejected on the ground that the post of the Deputy General Manager being an ex-cadre post, the question of the appellant possessing the requisite educational qualification did not arise. Thereupon G. N. Misra filed another Writ Petition No. 2681 of 1984 under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the appellants appointment. In that petition although the appellant was impleaded as a co-respondent along with the Managing Director and Chairman of the company he did not choose to enter an appearance, presumably because the company was expected to defend its action. Pending the hearing and disposal of the petition the company decided to restructure the Personal & Technical Department of the company. A. sub-committee was entrusted the task to undertake this exercise and select candidates from amongst the officers of the company to occupy higher posts that may be created. Accordingly one Pillai was appointed as General Manager (P) while the appellant was selected and appointed as General Manager (T). The Writ Petition No. 2681 of 1984 was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 18th July, 1989.

2. The High Court in its impugned judgment points out that the post of the Chief Mining Engineer was a promotional post to be filled in by selection. The minimum educational qualification for entry into the said promotional post was (i) a degree or equivalent diploma in mining from a recognised university or institute and (ii) First Class Mine Managers certificate of competency under Metalliferous Mines Regulations. In addition the candidate was required to have at least 15 years experience of which 7 years in a responsible position in an underground mine e.g. Senior Mining Engineer, Deputy Production Manager or Deputy Planning and Designing Engineer. The High Court found that the appellant possessed the required certificate as well as experience but did not possess the educational qualification for entry into the promotional cadre of Chief Mining Engineers. The High Court rejected the managements content I on that the appellant was qualified to be appointed as the Deputy General Manager because the only requirement for that post was three years experience as Chief Mining Engineer which the appellant undoubtedly possessed. The High Court held :

"If a person