JUDGMENT 1. - This is a D. B. Civil Special Appeal filed by Ramnarayan Chand against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court dated 24th August, 1976 by which the appellant's writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this special appeal may be briefly stated as follows : 3. The appellant was appointed to the post of lower division clerk In the Civil Supplies Department in the erstwhile State of Jodhpur on 24-10-1944. He continued to work on the said post till the then Jodhpur State was merged In the State of Rajasthan. After the merger he worked as lower division clerk in rationing branch of the department of Civil Supplies and was promoted to the post of rationing Inspector on 5th April,1950. Thereafter, he was duly selected by a committee constituted for selection of persons in the Rajasthan Subordinate Administrative 'service (Junior post) vide Commissioner's letter dated 29th June, 1953. On 11-3-1954 the appellant was absorbed as clerk in the office of the A.C.O. Jodhpur and subsequent thereto he was absorbed in the office of the Collector Jaisalmer and was posted there as lower division clerk on 7-6-1954. in the revised grade of Rs. 50-4-90. The appellant was confirmed as lower division clerk with affect from 11-6-1954 vide order of the Collector Jaisalmer dated 11.8.1960, but later on upon his representation the mistake was rectified and he was treated to have been confirmed with effect from 14-10-1944. The appellant served as lower division clerk for 10 years without promotion to the post of upper division clerk. The appellant, therefore, made several representations to 'the Collector requesting the latter to promote him to the pool of U.D.C. but the authorities concerned turned deaf-ears to him and the Respondents Nos. 8, 10 to 16, 18, 19, 22, 23. 27 to 30, 41 and 42 who were junior to the appellant and were not eligible for promotion to the post of upper division clerks were promoted to the post of U.D.C Likewise, Respondents Nos. 9, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 31 to 40 who were officiating upper division clerks and were junior to the appellant also dot their promotion to the post of U.D.C. inspite of the fact that the service record of the appellant was quite good and no adverse entry was made therein against him. 9, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 31 to 40 who were officiating upper division clerks and were junior to the appellant also dot their promotion to the post of U.D.C. inspite of the fact that the service record of the appellant was quite good and no adverse entry was made therein against him. The appellant. no doubt, was once suspended while working as lower division clerk at Pokaran vide order of the Collector dated 12.9-1965 and was censured in the disciplinary inquiry. but on appeal be was exonerated by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and the order of the Collector was quashed. As the appellant has never been considered for promotion to the post of U.D.C. he claimed promotion and seniority in the District of Jaisalmer although at the time of filing the writ petition in the High Court (out of which this appeal arises) be was transferred is Jodhpur and posted as In-charge Archieves District Archieves Office Jodhpur having his lien on the post of lower division clerk In the District of Jaisalmer. The appellant's grievance was that the Respondents Nos 1 to 7 did not consider him for promotion to the post of U D C. and acted in violation of the Service Rules and the principles of natural justice. The appellant, therefore, gave a notice of demand of justice to the Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 along with the draft of the writ petition, but no reply was given to him. Hence the appellant filed a writ petition In the High Court and prayed for the following relief : (a) That by an appropriate writ, direction or order the Respondents Nos. 2, 4, 5 be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner pending before them since long for promoting the juniors to the post of U.D.C. and non-consideration of the petitioner's case while doing so. (b) It is, therefore, humbly requested that by an appropriate writ order of direction, the impugned order and seniority lists Nos. Exs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 be quashed in so far as they relate to the respondents. (c) That by an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents Nos. 1 to 7 be asked to promote the petitioner as Upper Division Clerk from 1951 when he was eligible for promotion or from the date when the Court deems fit. Exs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 be quashed in so far as they relate to the respondents. (c) That by an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents Nos. 1 to 7 be asked to promote the petitioner as Upper Division Clerk from 1951 when he was eligible for promotion or from the date when the Court deems fit. (d) That by an appropriate writ orders or direction the petitioner be awarded or the consequential relief from the late he it entitled to get the same in the opinion of the Court. (e) That any other appropriate writ order or direction, be issued warranted in the circumstances. (f) That the writ petition be allowed with costs. 4. A reply was filed to this writ petition on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 by Ramprasad Joshi Sub-Divisional Officer Jaisalmer through Harnath Calla Deputy Government Advocate Jodhpur in which it was Stated that the case of the appellant was considered and he was not found eligible for promotion to the post of U.D.C as his name was not mentioned is the provisional seniority list of lower division clothe which was published by the Collector Jaisalmer on 21-1-1963. If the appellant felt himself aggrieved on that score he should have preferred an appeal to 'the competent authority in the prescribed manner. It was further urged in the reply that the service record of the appellant was average one and on the whole his conduct was for, from being satisfactory because of charge of insubordination and the lien of the appellant was suspended vide order of the Collector Jaisalmer dated 10-12-1911 as he was transferred from Jaisalmer District on August, 1968. In short the plea of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 was that the appellant was not entitled to any relief claimed by him in the writ petition as the orders regarding promotion and seniority were not passed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. The appellant filed a rejoinder to the reply submitted by the respondents Nos. 1 to 7. 6. 1 to 7 was that the appellant was not entitled to any relief claimed by him in the writ petition as the orders regarding promotion and seniority were not passed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. The appellant filed a rejoinder to the reply submitted by the respondents Nos. 1 to 7. 6. The learned Single Judge of this Court heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was not possible for the court In the circumstances of the case to give any relief to the appellant it was, however, left open to the appellant to raise his objections before the appropriate authority who may consider his grievance and pats an order according to law and the Rules. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred this special appeal, as stated above. 7. We have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. M. Mridul and Mr. B. Advani learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.D Purohit Additional Government-Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents Nos. 1 to 7. 8. Firstly, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that ogee the learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of U.D.C. on 1-6 1972 he ought to have directed the respondents to consider his case for the purpose of promotion because more suspension of lien that too being illegal could not have any adverse effect on the right of the appellant to be considered for promotion at the place i.e. Jaisalmer District where he retained his lien despite his transfer to Jodhpur as In-charge Archieves District Archieves Officer Jodhpur. In support of his above contention the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following authorities : (1) State of Mysore v. M.H. Bellary (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 868) (2) Govt. of India v. G.A. Balakrishnan [1975 SLR (1) 81. (3) State of Haryana v. Shri Desraj [1976 (1) SLR 191] 9. We have carefully perused the authorities cited above and considered the above contentions. In our opinion the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant is not devoid of force. of India v. G.A. Balakrishnan [1975 SLR (1) 81. (3) State of Haryana v. Shri Desraj [1976 (1) SLR 191] 9. We have carefully perused the authorities cited above and considered the above contentions. In our opinion the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant is not devoid of force. It is no doubt true that the appellant cannot be beard to say that, being a Government servant, he has right to promotion but certainly he can contend that he had a right to be considered for promotion to the post of U.D C. along with other competing persons who belonged to the came class or grade of service, it appears from a bare perusal of the record that juniors belonging to the same class or grade of service were promoted over the head of the senior i.e. the appellant without considering the claim of the latter. Such promotions were made in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution because the appellant has been arbitrarily dealt with in matters of promotion and his right to be considered for promotion has been ignored. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court to see that the same standard to all persons similarly situated is applied with respect to promotion. The fact that the appellant was once suspended and punished for some charge of Insubordination In a disciplinary Inquiry should not and cannot by itself disqualify him for promotion to the poet of U.D.C . If he was otherwise suitable for being promoted to the post, because he was exonerated from that charge vide order of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan dated 8-2-1966 and so his exclusion from consideration for promotion to the post of U.D.C. on this wholly irrelevant ground was not justified. Likewise, the fact that he was transferred or deputed to another department temporarily would not be made a point against him for non-consideration of the claim for promotion to the post of U.D.C and for giving other juniors promotion over his head during his deputation or transfer. 10. According to clause (a) of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Service Rules two or more Government servants cannot be appointed substantively to the same permanent post at the same time. Clause (c) further ben appointment of a Government servant substantively to a post on whirl mother Government servant holds a lien. 10. According to clause (a) of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Service Rules two or more Government servants cannot be appointed substantively to the same permanent post at the same time. Clause (c) further ben appointment of a Government servant substantively to a post on whirl mother Government servant holds a lien. Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Service Rules lays down that unless in any case it be otherwise provided in these Rules, a Government servant substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that poet and ceased to hold any lies previously acquired on any other post. Rule 16 of the said Rules further makes it clear that unless his lien is suspended under Rule 17 or transferred under Rule 19 a Government servant holding substantively a permanent post retains a lien on that post while performing the duties of that post and while on foreign service or holding a temporary post or officiating in another post. Hence it is evident from the Rules quoted above that the appellant while officiating in another post i.e. In-charge Archieves District Archieves Office Jodhpur retained his lien on the poet of lower division clerk in the Collectorate Jaisalmer on which be was substantively appointed and of which he was working prior to his transfer. It is undoubtedly true that the Government could suspend his lien on the Permanent post of L.D.C. which he held substantively. if he was appointed in a substantive capacity to a tenure post or provisionally to a post on which another Government servant would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended under this Rule. Clause (b) of Rule 17 further empowers the Government to suspend at their option the lien of a Government servant on a poet which he holds substantively. If he is deputed out of India or transferred to foreign service or In the circumstances not covered by clause (a) of this Rule, is transferred is an officiating capacity to a post in another cadre, if in any of there cases there is reason to believe that he will remain absent from the post on which he holds lien for a period of not lose than three years but clause (a) of Rule 18 clearly lays down that a Government servant's lion on the post may in no circumstances be terminated even with his consent. If the result of such termination Is to leave him without a lies or a suspended lien upon a permanent post Clause (b) however provides that a Government servant's lien on a post stands terminated on his acquiring a lien on a permanent post (Whether under the Government or Central or State Government) out side the cadre on which he Is borne. A study of these Rules reveals that in the instant case the appellant's lien on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Department of Collectorate Jaisalmer could in no circumstances be terminated even with his consent upon his transfer to another department because the result would be to leave him without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post. The Collector Jaisalmer therefore was not empowered to put easy order regarding termination of the lien of the appellant upon his permanent post of lower division clerk. The reason Is that the ,appellant did not acquire any lien on any permanent post after he was transferred to another department not was he substantively appointed to any permanent post in another department Consequently, we are of the view that the appellant did not cease to hold his lien on a permanent post of lower division clerk on which he was confirmed in the department of Collectorate Jaisalmer before his transfer to any department. The respondents were therefore not justified in ignoring the appellant's claim for promotion to the post of U.D.C. in the department of Collectorate Jaisalmer merely on the ground that his lien was suspended or terminated on that post after he was transferred to another department. 11. Another contention put forward by Mr. M. Mridul before us is that the learned single Judge of this court committed an error in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of delay in fling it. This contention also has some force as we are of the view that there were no laches and undue delay on the part of the appellant to move this Court. The appellant made several representations without delay to the authorities concerned right from the year 1956 of 1973, but his representations were not considered as alleged by him In his writ petition and his right to be considered for promotion to the post U.D.C. was every time ignored or denied without any reasonable cause. The appellant made several representations without delay to the authorities concerned right from the year 1956 of 1973, but his representations were not considered as alleged by him In his writ petition and his right to be considered for promotion to the post U.D.C. was every time ignored or denied without any reasonable cause. Hence the delay if any, in filing the writ petition is of no material significance in the absence of any material on the record to show his negligence in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 246 of the Constitution of India. As persons who were junior to the appellant have in the meanwhile been promoted to the higher post of upper division cloth without considering the case of the appellant for promotion to that post, we consider it just and proper to accept the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court dated 24-8-76 and direct the respondents Nos. 1 to 7 to consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of U.D.C. as on 23.10.1965 and 1.6.1972 in the light of the above observations and to take all consequential steps. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear the costs of this special appeal.Appeal allowed. *******