JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. Respondent herein is a statutory authority constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. Appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer on 12.8.1976. It is contended by Appellant that he is a Graduate Degree Holder. He is said to be senior to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 who are diploma holders. Appellant was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 29.3.2001. He made a representation for upgradation of his pay-scale to Rs. 10,000-325-15,200, with seniority, which was not granted, although similar benefits had been granted to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. He filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 13.8.2002, directed Respondent to consider his representation within a period of six months. The said representation was rejected by Respondent by an order dated 23.9.2002 stating that he was not entitled thereto. In support of the said order, attention of Appellant was drawn to the norms laid down for fixation of seniority as well as for set up of pay.

3. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by Appellant herein before the Delhi High Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 13.1.2004 opining that as DDA had framed recruitment rules and promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer were being effected in terms thereof providing for 50% of promotions from amongst the Junior Engineers having a degree with 3 years of service in the post, and, thus, the order impugned in the writ petition could not be interfered with. An intra-Court appeal filed by Appellant being Letters Patent Appeal No. 363/2004 was dismissed by a Division Bench of the said High Court, inter alia, relying on a decision of this Court in Roop Chand Adlakha and Ors. v. Development Authority and Ors. [1989 Supp. (1) SCC 116]. Appellant is thus before us.

4. Mr. Nafis A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for Appellant would urge that respondent No. 1 having adopted a resolution; in absence of any rules, the rules framed by the Central Government were to be followed and, thus, it was bound to apply the rules applicable to the employees of the CPWD. In this connection our attention has been drawn to a notification dated 17.1.1977 wherein it was provided :

“24. Recruitment by promotion shall be made :

i)50% by selection on the basis of merit from among permanent Junior Engineers employed on the Electrical Engineering side of the Central Public Works Department; and

ii)50% by selection from among Junior Engineers, employed on the Electrical Engineering side of the Central Public Works Department, after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of a limited Departmental Competitive Examination which shall be held in accordance with the rules to be made by the Central Government, after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission.”

5. It has further been contended that a resolution was adopted by the DDA to make a comparison of the proposed recruitment rules with those available in sister organisation like Central Public Works department, NDMC, MCD, etc. According to the learned counsel, the Central Government has also amended the Central Electrical Engineering Service, Class II, Recruitment Rules, in terms whereof recruitment was to be made on the basis of a competitive examination or by promotion in accordance with Part IV thereof. The purported rules framed by the DDA, it was urged, were not made in terms of the regulation making power as contained in Section 57 of the Act, as prior thereto neither any approval of the Central Government was taken nor the rules were laid before the Parliament. It was submitted that in any event, the degree holders and the diploma holders having been appointed on a cadre, no discrimination in regard to the scale of pay or avenue of promotion is permissible in law. In support of the said contention, strong reliance has been made on the Constitution Bench decisi