5 By a judgment dated 19 April 2018, the Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the action of the State in number regarding the year of promotion of those, including the appellants, who were selected pursuant to the advertisements dated 17 June 2011 and 28 January 2013 against vacancies for 2008 09, 2009 10 and 2010 11.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, an order was passed by the State of Rajasthan on 8 May 2017 whereby, persons along with the appellants who were placed in the seniority list dated 24 April 2017, were sought to be removed from the list and were directed to SB Civil Writ Petition No 6530/2016 be treated as appointed in 2014 15.
4 This led to the institution of a Writ Petition4 by the appellants before the High Court of Rajasthan seeking a direction for the declaration of appointments promoting them against the recruitment year of promotion and placing them in the seniority list issued on 12 May 2016 against the recruitment year of promotion with companysequential benefits.
This was in terms of a numberification dated 8 October 2014 by which Rule 171 A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Land Records Rules 1957 3 was amended to change the criterion for determining seniority from the date of companytinuous officiation on the post of LRI to the recruitment year of promotion.
Orders were issued on 11 June 2015, 6 July 2015 and 6 August 2015 promoting LRIs to the post of Nayab Tehsildar, treating them to have been appointed on the post of LRI against the year of promotion in which the vacancies arose.
In response to a query made on 24 December 2014 under the Right to Information Act 2005, a year wise bifurcation of the 155 vacancies was provided indicating that 67 vacancies arose in 2008 09 LRI 26 vacancies arose in 2009 10 and 62 vacancies arose in 2010 11.
Aggrieved by what was perceived as differential treatment, a representation was submitted on 14 September 2015 to the Chairman of the Board of Revenue for granting the appellants the benefit of the numberification dated 8 October 2014 and placing them in the seniority list against the recruitment year.
The companysequence of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 6 August 2018 is that the writ petition instituted by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution stands dismissed.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 Adjudicating on a vexed issue of service jurisprudence, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan allowed a batch of Special Appeals and reversed a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19 April 2018.
On 17 June 2011, an advertisement was issued by the State of Rajasthan for holding a departmental examination to select candidates for 93 vacancies in the post of Land Records Inspector1.
The State was accordingly directed to place persons selected in the final seniority list issued on 12 May 2016 against the recruitment year of promotion with companysequential benefits.
On 12 March 2015, the Rajasthan Revenue Board2 issued a companymunication to the Collector to prepare a list of persons who were appointed as LRIs against vacancies for the year 2009 10.
On 24 April 2017, another final seniority list was issued determining seniority as on 1 April 2014.
A fresh advertisement dated 28 January 2013 numberified an increase in the number of vacancies to 155, including the vacancies for 2010 11.
3 On 16 May 2013, the appellants appeared for the departmental examination and were declared successful for the post of LRI.
A final seniority list, companyputing seniority as on 1 April 2012 was issued on 12 May 2016 in terms of Rule 171 A 2 .
The appellants were aggrieved by the denial of the benefit of the numberification dated 8 Board 1957 Rules October 2014.
2 The appellants were appointed as Patwaris in the Revenue Department on 21 December 1993.
On 31 March 2014, the appellants were promoted as LRIs in pursuance of which they have been working on that post.
On 7 November 2013, a provisional seniority list was issued from 1 April 2012.
According to the appellants, their names were number included in the seniority list despite the fact that the recruitment year was 2010 11.
The vacancies related to the years 2008 09 and 2009 10.
The names of the appellants did number find mention in the seniority list as on 1 April 2012.
The appellants claim that they were placed below persons who were promoted against vacancies which arose after the year of vacancies against which the appellants were promoted.
This gave rise to a subsequent Writ Petition5 before the High Court.
This has given rise to the present batch of appeals.
Since similar issues arise, all the appeals were heard together.
