IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of seniority rules, the nature of recruitment, and the validity of the seniority list revision under the Land Revenue Act and relevant rules.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN BHANSALI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2/5/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioners has been dismissed.

2. The appellant-petitioners were initially appointed as Patwaris and came to be promoted as Inspector (Land Records) (‘ILR’) vide DPC held on 14/10/2014 against the vacancies of the year 2014-15 by order dated 15/10/2014. The private respondents were also appointed as Patwaris and came to be promoted as ILR pursuant to the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (‘LDCE’). The dispute pertains to the challenge laid by the appellant-petitioners to the final seniority lists dated 1/11/2019 (Annex.8 to 10), whereby, the respondents No.3 to 8, who have been impleaded in representative capacity, have been indicated as senior to the petitioners.

3. While the petitioners, as noticed hereinbefore, were promoted through DPC by order dated 15/10/2014, the respondents were promoted pursuant to the advertisement for holding competitive examination, which was first published on 17/6/2011 for 93 posts, fresh advertisement for 155 posts was published on 28/1/2013, the examinations were held on 21/4/2013 and result was declared on 16/5/2013, wherein, the respondents were declared successful and were sent to school for training on 31/12/2013; the training was completed on 4/3/2014 and by order dated 31/3/2014 they were allocated the districts.

4. The said group of 136 ILRs have been indicated as Batch Number 24 by the respondents in the seniority list. The final seniority list initially came to be published by the Board of Revenue on 28/8/2019, wherein, the petitioners were indicated as senior to the batch number 24, however, the Board of Revenue cancelling the seniority list dated 28/8/2019, issued provisional seniority list dated 24/10/2019 inviting objections of all concerned, wherein, in the provisional seniority list, the respondents – batch number 24 were indicated as senior to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their objections to the provisional seniority list dated 24/10/2019 contending that batch number 24 has joined in the Financial Year 2014-15 i.e. in the same year in which the petitioners were promoted and hence they were entitled to be given precedence in terms of Rule 299 of the Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (‘the Rules, 1957’). The impugned seniority lists (Annex.8 to 10 to the writ petition) were published by the State Government/Board of Revenue for three years (1/4/2015, 1/4/2016 and 1/4/2017) in which the ILRs of batch no. 24 were ranked senior to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved the writ petition was filed.

5. Submissions were made that the seniority list published was contrary to the law inasmuch as Rule 171-A of the Rules, 1957 was violated and that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganga Vishan Gujarati vs. State of Rajasthan : (2019) 16 SCC 28 has not been followed.

6. Further submissions were made that the final seniority list i.e. 28/8/2019 could not be revised/reviewed by the respondents.

7. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that applicable Rule 171-A of the Rules, 1957 was amended w.e.f. 8/10/2014 and in case unamended provision is taken into consideration, the petitioners, who were promoted on 15/10/2014 cannot claim to be senior to the batch number 24, who were promoted on 31/3/2014 and joined latest on 4/4/2014.

8. It was further held that in case the amended rule is held applicable, on issuance of order dated 31/3/2014, whereby, the State Govt./Board of Revenue directed all successful candidates (while allocating them districts) to report to the concerned District Collector, the batch number 24, who was promoted on the post of ILR and as such, their year of promotion would be 2013-14.

9. It was further held that the petitioners and responden