( 1 ) THE petitioners who are engineers holding degrees in Engineering (hereinafter referred to as the `graduate Engineers ) are aggrieved by the approval granted by the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the `upsc ) vide its letter dated 19. 10. 1989 bearing No. F/3/24 (9)/89-RR to the Resolution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for amendment of the existing recruitment regulations for the post of Superintending Engineers. As a result of the aforesaid amendment, the existing requirement of possessing a degree in Engineering for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) was omitted and instead the minimum qualification of at least a Diploma in Civil Engineering was prescribed. The UPSC while giving approval further desired that the Municipal Corporation should review the existing Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) keeping in view the position in the DWSandd Undertaking.

( 2 ) THE petitioners contend that the degree holders and diploma holders have consistently been treated as unequals in the post throughout. Junior Engineers are recruited directly from degree holders and from diploma holders with experience. Assistant Engineers are recruited 50% by way of promotion and 50% by way of direct recruitment. Executive Engineers are appointed on the basis of both promotion and direct recruitment. However, for direct recruitment, a degree with seven years experience is essential. From the cadre of Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers are appointed by promotion and if no suitable officer is available, then the appointment is by transfer, deputation or direct recruitment in consultation with UPSC. Under the May 1973 Resolution of the Corporation, for being promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil), a degree in Engineering was an essential qualification. Sometime in September 1987, a private member had moved an unofficial Resolution, proposing that for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, 25% of the posts should be filled by diploma holders and 75% by degree holders. The petitioners contend that the Municipal Commissioner vide his report dated 20. 5. 1988 did not recommend the same and gave his report against the proposed Resolution. The Commissioner in his report recommended that it was not appropriate to make amendment in the Recruitment Regulations for the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) to provide eligibility to diploma holders for promotion to the post. The Commissioner, it appears, relied on the fact that he UPSC, while considering the case of promotion of Assistant Engineers, had not agreed to provide for promotion of diploma holders even to the post of Executive Engineers. The Corporation, nevertheless, vide a Resolution dated 27. 6. 1988 bearing No. 343 accepted the recommendation of the Appointments, Promotion, Disciplinary and Allied Matters Committee, for amendment to the existing regulations to provide that 75% of the posts be filled up from the degree holders and 25% from Diploma Holder Executive Engineers. The Commissioner again vide his letter of 7. 9. 1988, reiterated his views that it would not be appropriate to have the qualification of diploma in Civil Engineering as eligibility condition in the Recruitment Regulations for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil ). Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Municipal Commissioner, the Appointments, Promotions Disciplinary and Allied Matters Committee of the Corporation vide its Resolution dated 6. 10. 1988, reiterated the proposed amendment in the Recruitment Regulations and desired that the same be referred to the UPSC for concurrence. The motion was carried on 28. 11. 1988. It is in this background that the UPSC gave the approval dated 19. 10. 1989, as noted earlier.

( 3 ) THE petitioners assail the amendment in the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations as being arbitrary, resulting in gross injusti