Hon'ble JAIN, J.-Since all the special appeals are directed against common order of learned Single Judge dated 4th March, iob9, therefore, all the special appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The respondent Ajay Singh, an officer of Rajasthan Administrative Service, (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) preferred three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common order as all the writ petitions were similar in nature. The writ petition No.3355/2004 was preferred by three persons namely Hanuman Singh Bhati, Rajesh Yadav and Ajay Singh, but during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners Hanuman Singh Bhati and Rajesh Yadav both withdrew their writ petitions. Therefore, Ajay Singh remained as petitioner in writ petition No.3355/2004.

3. The learned Single Judge in its impugned order dated 4th March, 2009 has quoted the relief clause of all the three writ petitions, and the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4866/2008 have been given as leading case.

4. The petitioner in writ petition No.3355/2004 challenged the impugned seniority list dated 4.5.2004 as on 1.4.1993 & 1.4.1994 (Annexures 12 & 13) in addition to other prayers.

5. In writ petition No.1742/2008, the petitioner prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to include the name of the merit promotees (1991-92) including the petitioner in the list to be sent to UPSC for convening IAS Board (1996-97 to 2007-08) over and above the reserved categories candidates as had been shown in the seniority list issued by the respondents on 26.6.2000 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 12.9.2001.

6. In addition to other prayers, the petitioner in writ petition No.4866/2008 initially challenged the order dated 12th May, 2008 and by way of amendment in the writ petition he also challenged the final seniority list dated 24th June, 2008 (Annex.3).

7. The learned Single Judge vide its impugned common order quashed and set aside the final seniority list dated 24th June, 2008 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur in part as mentioned in the order. Para Nos. 88 & 89 of the impugned judgment are reproduced as under:-

"88. In view of the discussions made herein above, the impugned final seniority list dated 24.06.2008 (Annexure-3) issued by the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur is hereby quashed and set-aside so far as the merit promotees whose selection was made against the vacancies for the year 1991-92 considering 7 out of 7 outstanding/very good APARs are concerned, and the respondents are directed to show the names of merit promotees for the year 1991-92 over and above the reserved category candidates as had been shown in the seniority list issued by the respondents on 23.02.1996 as per the decision of the Division Bench dated 12.09.2001 following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Shivnath Prasad (supra) and shall prepare final seniority list in the light of the judgment dated 12.09.2001 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivnath Prasad (supra) and the merit promotees, thus, are also entitled for consideration on the post of lAS. as per their merit.

89. Consequently, all the writ petitions stand allowed in the terms as indicated herein above."

8. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the State of Rajasthan has preferred three special appeals in all the three writ petitions filed by petitioner Ajay Singh. The appellant Gajendra Singh and Smt.Prabha Tak have also challenged the impugned order of learned Single Judge by way of two separate special appeals.

9. The petitioner in his writ petition No.4866/2008 pleaded that he was appointed as Rajasthan Administrative Service Officer in junior scale of RAS on 15th October, 1979. He was promoted in the senior scale