JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners captioned above have joined hands to challenge final seniority list dated 01.11.2019, particularly qua the persons mentioned between serial number 1835 to 1964 of the seniority list as on 01.04.2015, out of whom, seven persons have been impleaded as party respondents in the representative capacity.

2. For the purpose of laying the factual canvass, the particulars of petitioner no.1 Kharta Ram are being taken into account.

3. Petitioner no.1 – Kharta Ram was appointed as Patwari on 29.09.1987, whereafter he was promoted to the post of Inspector Land Records (hereinafter referred to as ‘ILR’) in the meeting dated 14.01.2015 of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘DPC’) for the year 2014-2015.

4. Rule 284 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1957’), provides for two channels of promotion for admission to the training school; one by seniority cum merit (by way of DPC) and other being Competitive Examination or Accelerated Promotion. The petitioners have been promoted by first method whereas the respondent No.3 to 9 were promoted by the second process.

5. For the group of private respondents, facts relating to respondent no.3 Ashok Sharma, who was appointed as Patwari on 04.08.1997 are being noted. An advertisement for holding Competitive Examination was firstly published on 17.06.2011 for 93 posts, but for some reasons, the examination could not take place and a fresh advertisement with increased seats (155) was published on 28.01.2013. Many inservice Patwaris including the private respondents appeared in the examinations, which were held on 21.04.2013. When the result was declared on 16.05.2013, the private respondents were declared successful and were sent to school for training on 31.12.2013. The training was complete on 04.03.2014.

6. After completion of the training, 136 person including the private respondents were allocated districts by way of order dated 31.03.2014 with a further stipulation that the place of posting would be provided by the concerned Divisional Commissioner. This group of 136 ILRs are jointly mentioned by the respondents in the seniority list as Batch No.24 and thus, referred hereinafter as ILRs of Batch No.24.

7. On 28.08.2019, final seniority list came to be published by the Board of Revenue in which the petitioners and other similarly situated persons who were promoted in the DPC held on 14.10.2014 were placed at serial no. 1403 to 1997 and the private respondents (batch No.24) were placed at serial no. 1998 to 2131.

8. On 24.10.2019 a provisional seniority list again came to be issued by the Secretary (Land Records), Board of Revenue while cancelling the earlier final seniority list dated 28.08.2019. and inviting objections of all concerned.

9. The petitioners submitted their objections against the said provisional seniority list dated 24.10.2019 inter-alia contending that the private respondents have joined in the financial year 2014-15, in the same year in which the petitioners were promoted (2014-15) and hence, the petitioners should be given precedence over them as per Rule 299 of the Rules of 1957.

10. On 01.11.2019, The State Government / Board of Revenue published final seniority lists of ILRs for three years (as on 01.04.2015, 01.04.2016 and 01.04.2017) in which the ILRs of batch No. 24 – the respondents were ranked senior to the petitioners.

11. Feeling aggrieved of the above final seniority list dated 01.11.2019, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition, apprehending that if the promotions for the vacancy year 2020-21 are given on the basis of said seniority list (dated 01.11.2019) their rights would be prejudicely affected.

12. The premise for which the writ petition has been preferred is, that the seniority list published by the Board of Revenue / State Government is contrary to law, more particularly, Rule 171-A of the Rules of 1957 and the judgment dated 21.08.2019 of Hon’ble the S