R.S. Pathak, C.J.@mdashWe have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners on these two writ petitions. Two points have been urged before us. The first point is that the Petitioners have not been considered for promotion to the post of Company Commander erroneously on the: ground that they were not matriculates. The submission is that Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards and Civil Devence Class III (Non-ministerial)(Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Condition of Service) Rules, 1970, which provides for recruitment by promotion does not specifically prescribe the educational qualifications necessary for eligibility in this regard and that Rule 6(1) which makes provision for such qualifications applies only to the appointment of direct recruits. We see no force in this contention.
2. Rule 7 itself does not mention the educational qualifications. The educational qualifications are set forth in Rule 6, and in the matter of applying those educational qualifications no restriction has been imposed by the body of the rule itself, whether it will apply to direct recruits only or also to those appointed by promotion. Our attention is drawn to the marginal note of Rule 6 which states:
Educational, technical qualifications and experience for direct recruits....
In our opinion the marginal note cannot control the meaning or sense of the content of the rule. Inasmuch as admittedly the Petitioners did not satisfy the educational qualifications set forth in the rule for the post of the Company Commander, the point must fail.
3. The second point relates to the validity of the seniority list (Annexure ''L''). That list is dscribed as "Final Seniority List of Temporary Civil Devence Instructors/Chief Instructor/ and Administrative Officer, in the pay scale of Rs. 250-10-300/15-450, in the Civil Defence and Home Guards Department as it stood on 1st February, f72". It is urged that the final seniority list is invalid inasmuch as it is the result of an amalgamation of cadres contrary to the rules. It seems to us that the seniority list has been prepared for certain purposes only. It does not follow from any amalgamation of the cadres to which the different members named in the list belong. The learned Advocate-General confirms this factual position. It is, therefore, clear that the second contention has also no force.
4. The writ petitions are rejected.
