JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR MITTAL, J.

1. This judgment shall decide aforementioned writ petitions as facts are similar and identical questions of law arise therein. Detailed facts are being extracted from CWP-24538/2019.

2. The petitioner is serving as a District Revenue Officer in the State of Haryana. He was directly appointed as Naib Tehsildar in 1996 and promoted as Tehsildar in 2011. In October 2017, he was promoted as District Revenue Officer (DRO). Prior to his promotion as DRO, the office of Chief Secretary, Haryana, issued a communication dated 26.6.2015, stating that for appointment to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) [hereinafter referred to as the ‘HCS (EB)’] from the source of DROs/Tehsildars, the stipulation of eight years continuous Government service mentioned in Rule 9 (1)(a)(i) of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Service Rules’) would mean continuous service as DRO/Tehsildar. At that point in time, the petitioner had completed eight years of Government service including that as Naib Tehsildar and therefore, he challenged the aforementioned communication vide CWP-21845/2015. The said writ petition, however, c