D.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions raise common question and as such it would be proper to dispose them by a common order.
(2.) THE petitioner Manakchand Jain came to be appointed as Naib Tehsildar by promotion, on the basis of the recommendation of the Depart mental Promotion Committee. How ever the petitioner Umraosingh came to be appointed as Naib Tehsildar by direct recruitment, after he was duly selected by the Rajastan public Service Commission for the said post and was appointed on probation by the order of the Board of Revenue (hereinafter called 'the Board') dated December 5, 1959. Thus, both the petitioners came to be appointed on the posts of Naib Tehsildars in a substantive capacity and were duly confirmed on the said posts on the expiry of the period of probation. The appointment and promotion to and from the posts of Naib Tehsildars are governed by the Rajasthan Tehsildars Service Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). On their substantive appointment to the posts of Naib Tehsildars, the petitioner became members of the Rajasthan Tehsildars Service, constituted under the Rules. The petitioners were considered for promotion to the post of Tehsildars along with others persons by the Departmental Promotion Committe (hereinafter called 'Committee') and on the basis of its recommendations, the Board by its order dated July 9, 1971 promoted both the petitioners to the posts of Tehsildars with effect from June 15, 1971 on probation for a period of one year But thereafter the Supreme Court, while deciding the appeal of Gumansingh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., struck down the circular issued by the State Government dated August 27, 1966 prescribing the adoption of the marking, formula in matters of promotion under the various service Rules prevailing in the State of Rajasthan. On the basis of the aforesaid decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the Government of Rajasthan issued a direction that all the promotions made in the various ser ices on the basis of the aforesaid marking system from the year 1970 onwards, may be reviewed by the Committees concerned after ignoring the marking system and fresh recommendations be made by the said Committees for substantive appointments in such services. As such the case of the persons, including the two petitioners, who were promoted by the order of the Board dated July 9, 1997 as Tehsildats on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee, were alto reviewed by the Committee in June 1972 after ignoring the marking system and on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee on review, the Board be its order dated March 15, 1973 promoted 62 persons to posts of Tehsildars in substantive capacity in the seniority cum merit quota In the last mentioned order issued by the Board the names of the two petitioners were omitted with the result that both the petitioners were ret promoted to the posts of Tehsildars 32 more persons were promoted to the posts of Tehsildars on the basis of merit by another order issued on the same day. The petitioners filed the present writ petition against the aforesaid two orders passed by the Board and have prayed that (sic) the orders dated March 15, 1973 may be quashed and the respondents, the State and the Board, be restrained from reverting both the petitioners from the posts of substantive Tehsildars.
(3.) THE contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the two petitioners are that the petitioners were subjected to hostile discrimination in the matter of their promotion to the posts of Tehsildars, which was in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was also argued by their learned Counsel that the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Tehsildars by the order dated July 9, 1971 on probation and on the expiry of the period of probation they stood automatically confirmed en the said posts, as no order was issued extending their probationary period nor they were reverted to the posts of Naib Tehsildars on 'he expiry of the period of their probation from the posts of Tehsildars. It was urge -d that the reversion of the petitioners now on the posts of Naib Tehsildars would amount to reduction in rank and that there was no justification for the so called procedure of review.;