The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the qualification requirements as prescribed in the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service Rules, 1960, and its influence on the eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer.

1. - The petitioner claims promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer. The contention of the petitioner is that he possesses Diploma in Mining and Mines Surveying Engineering awarded by the Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan. He also passed Sections A & B of the A.M.I.E. (Mining) conducted by the Institution of Engineers. This qualification is recognised as being equivalent to a degree in Mines Engineering. This qualification has been prescribed as a qualification necessary for appointment to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer in Schedule I appended to the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service Rules, 1960 (in short the Rules of 1960). The post of Assistant Mining Engineer is a post encadred at Serial No. 3(i) of Schedule I as appended to the Rules of 1960, which is to be filled in 50% by direct recruitment, 30% by promotion from amongst Diploma Holders and 20% from amongst the Degree Holders. The petitioner was appointed as Surveyor in August 1979 & fulfil all the requirements provided in the Rules of 1960 for promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer. On April 1, 1987 the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Mines Engineer and should have been promoted on the said post alike one Shri Amba Lal Kumawat, who possessed qualification of Section A & B Examination of AMIE (Mining Engineering) and was promoted in the year 1978. As per the Pay Scale Rules, a Foreman Gr. II and a Surveyor, both are in pay scale No. 12 and as per column No. 5 of the Schedule I of the Rules of 1960, since promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer can be made amongst from Mines Foreman Grade I or Head Drafts man or from any post in the Subordinate Mines and Geological Service carrying scale of pay identical is or higher than Mines Foreman Grade II. The pay scale of a Surveyor and a Mines Foreman Grade II are identical both being in pay scale No. 12. Despite his eligibility the petitioner was not given promotion, therefore he submitted representation but no heed was paid. Thereafter he served notice for demand of justice and when he did not get the relief he instituted the writ petition.

2. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that in Column No. 5 in Schedule I appended with the Rules of 1960 in place of Mines Foreman Grade I. "Mines Foreman Grade II" has wrongly been published in the new Book and a review petition has been filed by the respondent seeking review of the judgment dated May 15, 1997 of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (writ) No. 792/95, State of Rajasthan and another v. Naresh Kumar Saxena .

3. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I have closely scrutinised the record as well as the judgment of the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan and another v. Naresh Kumar Saxena (supra). The Division Bench had occasion to interpret Columns 5 and 6 of Schedule I appended with the Rules of 1960. It was indicated thus :

"The combined effect of columns 5 & 6, to our mind, seems to be that holder of any post in the Subordinate Service, lower than Mines Foreman Grade II, is not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer, but holder of any post in the Subordinate Services carrying pay scale identical or higher than Mines Foreman Grade II is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer. In other words, a Mines Foreman Grade II is also eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer."

4. Unless the judgment of the Division Bench is reviewed I am bound to to follow it. In my considered opinion the petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer. Vide interim order passed on November 13, 1987, post of Assistant Mining Engineer was ordered to be kept vacant.

5. In view of what I have expressed here-in-above, the respondent is is directed to consider the petitioner for p