M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition presented by a class iv employee of the Income-Tax department seeking issue of writ of mandamus to the respondent directing him to promote the petitioner to the cadre of lower division clerk, came up for preliminary hearing on 9-12-1980. Having regard to the short question involved in the case, I directed sri S. R. Rajasekharamurthy, the learned standing counsel for the income-tax Department to take notice. Accordingly, the petition has come up for orders after notice to the respondents. By consent of both counsels the petition is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: - the petitioner was holding the post of peon on substantive basis. Under the rules regulating promotion to the post of lower division clerk, in the department of Income-tax, certain number of posts are reserved for being filled up by promotion from clause-IV staff on the basis of their success in departmental examination conducted for the purpose The pettioner was allowed tq take the examination in November 1979. The results of the examination were announced as per memorandum dated 22-3-1980 (Annexure-C ). His name is included ft serial number-3. The grievance of the "petitioner is that in spite of his having secured higher rank in the examination, he has not been promoted, but persons who are below him in the list have been promoted His contention is, the denial of appointment is illegal and discriminatory. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department submitted that though the petitioner was holding a post of peon earlier to august 1978, he had been appointed to the post of record keeper on 4-8-78 and according to the Rules of Recruitment record keepers were not eligible for promotion to the post of lower division clerk. He submitted that the authorities allowed the petitioner to appear for the examination with the hope that the posts of record keepers would also be included among the categories from which the promotion could be made to the posts of the lower division clerks and as it had not been so included the petitioner had not been given the promotion. He submitted that the authorities allowed the petitioner to appear for the examination with the hope that the posts of record keepers would also be included among the categories from which the promotion could be made to the posts of the lower division clerks and as it had not been so included the petitioner had not been given the promotion. ( 4 ) IN reply to the above submission sri P. R. Ramesh the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was holding a post of peon substantively and he was appointed io the post of record keeper only on officiating basis and as he had not yet been confirmed in the said post he was entitled to appear for the examination and also to be promoted to the post of the lower division clerk on the basis of his success in the examination. ( 5 ) IN my view, the contention urged for the petitioner is sound. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the appointment of the petitioner as record keeper was only on an officiating basis. Therefore such appointment was no valid ground to deny to the petitioner the right for promotion to the post of the lower division clerk as he was holding the post of the peon substantively. Even after bis appointment as record keeper on officiating basis he continued to have his lien in the post pi peon and was entitled to the opportunity of being considered for promotion to the cadre of lower division clerks. Therefore, the authorities were right in allowing the petitioner to appear for the examination, but were wrong in not giving him the promotion. ( 6 ) THE only question which remains for consideration is about the form in which the relief should be granted. Admittedly, the petitioner has been successful in the examination. There is no other ground urged for the department on which the appointment has been denied to the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE only question which remains for consideration is about the form in which the relief should be granted. Admittedly, the petitioner has been successful in the examination. There is no other ground urged for the department on which the appointment has been denied to the petitioner. Therefore, this is a fit case in which the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the petition (see The district Registrar v. M. B. Koyyakutty 7- For the reasons aforesaid, I make the following order: (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to the respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of lower division clerk with effect from the date that it was due; (iii) The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits permissible under the law. 8. Sri Rajasekharamurthy is permitted to file his meme of appearance within two weeks from to-day. --- *** --- .