Hon’ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, the same are being decided by a common order.

3. Writ Petition No. 1555 (SB) of 2012 was filed challenging the promotion order dated 5.10.2012 passed in favour of respondent No. 4.

4. Facts, in short, are that the petitioner No. 1 was initially appointed on the post of Technical Assistant (Sanskrit) after due advertisement and selection from U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad vide order dated 29.3.1979. In due course of time, the petitioner No. 1 was promoted on the post of Manuscript Officer vide order dated 6.5.1998. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 was appointed on the post of Technical Assistant (History) in the State Archives, Department of Culture, U.P., in the similar manner vide order dated 9.7.1990 and he was promoted on the post of Regional Archives Officer vide order dated 29.7.1999. Both the petitioners are continuously working on the said posts since the date of their promotion.

5. The service Rules pertaining to the selection, appointment and other service conditions of the petitioners were published in the year 1996, which known as ‘U.P. State Archives Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’) by exercising power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

6. After the death of Sri Javed Niyaz Beg, respondent No. 4 being the wife of Sri Javed Niyaz Beg, submitted an application on 23.3.1990 before the Deputy Secretary, Appointment Section of the State Government and requested therein that since her husband was an officer of Provincial Civil Services of 1979 batch and at the time of death i.e. on 25.1.1986, he was posted as Deputy Secretary in Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, therefore, she may be given appointment as per her qualification. She also mentioned her qualification in the said application form.

7. The then Secretary of Appointment Section of the State Government issued a letter dated 28.3.1990 to the Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad and requested therein that since the husband of respondent No. 4 had died on 25.1.1986 while he was posted as Deputy Secretary in Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, therefore, she may be given appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. As the respondent No. 4 was residing at Allahabad, therefore, she was given appointment in Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vide order dated 4.5.1990 on the post of Junior Clerk.

8. The respondent No. 4 thereafter moved an application on 13.5.1991 before the Appointment Secretary, which was processed in the Government and the Government thereafter, granted relaxation as contemplated under the Dying in Harness Rules, and appointed the respondent No. 4 on the post of Assistant Director (Conservation). The respondent No. 4 thereafter started functioning on the post in question when in the year 1991, Writ Petition No. 5968 (SS) of 1991 was filed challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4. The said writ petition was disposed of finally, by means of judgment and order dated 8.2.1994. In the said writ petition, a specific ground was taken regarding the objection raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions.

9. The aforesaid writ petition has been disposed of and the appointment of respondent No. 4 has attained finality and she continued to discharge her duties on the post in question, when in the year 2011, she was given officiating charge of Deputy Director as well as Director, which was challenged by way of Writ Petition No. 348 (SB) of 2012.

10. The petitioners were fully knowing since the year 1991 that respondent No. 4 was working in the department by virtue of her appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, but they did not challenge the appointment of respondent No. 4 at any point of time and it has