Mohammad Rafiq, J.

This writ petition has been filed by nine writ petitioners, who were all working on the post of Patwari in different districts of the Jaipur Division of the State of Rajasthan. The petitioners have assailed the validity of the amendment notification dated 12.10.2017, whereby the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 were promulgated, whereby Rule 171 and Rule 301 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, were amended. Their grievance is mainly directed against the substitution of the earlier Rule 301 by the new one. The effect of the substituted amendment is that in earlier Rule 301, the promotion of Patwaris to the post of Land Record Inspector used to be made on the basis of interlaced seniority list of districts of a particular division at the division level for preparing the zone of consideration for promotion. Now as per the Amended Rule of 301, the Board of Revenue has been required to prepare the seniority list of Patwaris of Revenue and Land Record Department at State level, which would form basis for their promotion.

2. Dr. Saugath Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that petitioner nos.1 and 2 were appointed as Patwari in the year 2000, petitioner no.3 in 2001, petitioner no.4 in 2002 and petitioner nos.5 to 9 were appointed in the year 2011 and till date they have not been granted promotion. The respondents initiated the proceedings for promotion for the vacancies of the year 2017 and 2018 of the Jaipur Division in which considering the number of vacancies, the petitioners fell within the zone of consideration and were hopeful of getting promotion. However, due to the amendment carried out by the respondents suddenly for preparation of State-wise seniority, the very basis of preparing the zone of consideration has been changed. In the State wise seniority now prepared as per the new Rule, name of the petitioners has been pushed down vis a vis the Patwaris of other divisions. Because of the amendment in the second proviso to clause (ib) of Rule 9, the seniority position settled earlier will be unsettled and juniors will be made seniors.

3. It is argued that earlier when the seniority list of each district was prepared separately, many Patwaris who sought transfer on their own request from one District to another were placed in the bottom of seniority, but now because of the State level seniority, they have regained the original placement in the seniority thereby prejudicing the right of the petitioners to claim promotion earlier than them. The impugned amendment would have huge adverse impact on the petitioners in that some of their juniors now when their names are reflected in State wise seniority list would be senior to them. Similarly, some of those who in State seniority were liable to be placed below them in State seniority list, yet because they have got promotion earlier as per the earlier criteria would continue to occupy the higher posts and the petitioners would be compelled to work under them. It is argued that the implementation of the Rule by the respondents in the mid of the year would take away the vested right of the petitioners inasmuch as some of the incumbents, who are on the verge of retirement would stand deprived of promotion forever. It is contended that after amendment made on 12.07.2017 from the Districts like Barmer, Jaisalmer and Jodhpur around 100 Patwaris have been transferred to Jaipur on their own request, though they as per the earlier rules were liable to be given seniority.

4. Dr. Saugath Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when similar amendment was made by the respondent-State in Rule 171A of the Rules of 1957 vide notification dated 8.10.2014, the Department of Personnel, refused to give retrospective effect and applied the same prospectively for the purpose of further promotion of Patwaris on the post of Inspector Land Records. However, in the case of the petitioners, the respondents