ORDER G.L. Oza, J. This is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 9-7-1980 directing that he can only be considered for promotion after he worked for 4 years as Assistant Superintendent Land Records. It is contended by the petitioner that he has been working as a Naib Tahsildar since 1965 which is the post equivalent to that of Assistant Superindentent Land Records and was, therefore, entitled to promotion as a Tahsildar or as Superintendent Land Records. It is also contended that juniors to him have been promoted, but he has not been considered for promotion. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Revenue Inspector in the year 1959 and was confirmed on that post in the year 1972 by the Director of Land Records. It is alleged that in the year 1965, by order dated 20-2-1965 the petitioner was promoted and appointed as a Naib Tahsildar and since then he is continuing as a Naib Tahsildar and has passed all the Departmental Examinations which entitled him to continuation and confirmation on the post of Naib Tahsildar and also for promotion. It is contended by the petitioner that Revenue Services are in two branches of the same department; one is Revenue and the other is Land Records and a Tahsildar in the revenue section is equal to a Superintendent of Land Records in the Land Records section, whereas a Naib Tahsildar in the Revenue section is equivalent to Assistant Superintendent Land Records in the Land Records section. It is alleged by the petitioner that the two cadres are interchangeable. According to the petitioner, in the year 1966, he was not considered for the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records although he was qualified for it, as he was already working as a Naib Tahsildar since 1965. According to him, one Shri J.K. Shrivastava who was junior to him, has been promoted. According to the petitioner, in the year 1973, he was considered for promotion and a communication was sent to him in 1975 asking him to join as an Assistant Superintendent Land Records Bhopal. He was also asked about his option, but as the posts of Naib Tahsildar and Assistant Superintendent Land Records were of the same category, there was no question for the petitioner to join that post. He was also asked about his option, but as the posts of Naib Tahsildar and Assistant Superintendent Land Records were of the same category, there was no question for the petitioner to join that post. Since then, he has been making representations, but to no effect and he has not been considered for promotion during all this period and ultimately by the impugned order, the representation made by him was rejected and it was stated that he could only be considered for promotion after he had worked for 4 years as Assistant Superintandent Land Records but the authorities forgot that he had worked on the post of Naib Tahsildar which is equal to the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records for more than 15 years since 1965 to 1980. According to the petitioner, this order rejecting his representation is bad in law. It is also contended by him that he was entitled to be promoted either as a Tahsildar or as Superintendent Land Records in either of the two branches. It is also contended that he has not yet been confirmed as a Naib Tahsildar although he has been working on that post since the last more than 15 years. In the Return filed by the State, it is contended that ordinarily a Naib Tahsildar is appointed after selection and recruitment through Public Service Commission, but only when certain posts are created. It is contended that the appointment of the petitioner as a Naib Tahsildar was an ad hoc made in 1965 and when in 1972 the Government, issued circular laying down the policy for appointment to this post, it was felt that the petitioner could not be appointed as a Naib Tahsildar in the revenue branch on promotion. At best, he could only, on promotion, be kept in land records section either as an Assistant Superintendent Land Records or a Naib Tahsildar. It is, therefore, contended that his case was considered and he was offered the post of an Assistant Superintendent Land Records although it was stated to be promotion and an option was given to him to accept it or not. It is, therefore, contended that his case was considered and he was offered the post of an Assistant Superintendent Land Records although it was stated to be promotion and an option was given to him to accept it or not. It is contended that as he chose not to accept that post, he could not be promoted as Superintendent Land Records, as for that post, his work as Assistant Superintendent Land Records for 4 years was necessary, therefore, his representation was rejected and it was indicated to him that he could only be considered for promotion after he had put in 4 years' work as Assistant Superintendent Land Records. Along with the Return, it has not been stated under what rules or circulars, the appointment of the petitioner was made in 1965. The order of the Government on which reliance is placed apparently is of the year 1972, but it is contended by the learned Dy. Advocate General that promotion from Revenue Inspector could only be made in the Land Records section and normally such a promotion as a Naib Tahsildar in the revenue section was not done. It was, therefore, contended that when in 1965 Naib Tahsildars were needed for purposes of disposal of cases, the petitioner who was a Revenue Inspector, was promoted as a Naib Tahsildar for disposal of cases, but in substance, he could only be considered to have been promoted in the Land Records section. It is further contended that in 1972 when the State Government issued instructions dated 16-9-1972, the case of the petitioner was considered and as in this order of the State Government it was indicated that Naib Tahsildars could not be appointed on promotion henceforth except by direct recruitment through Public Service Commission, the department considered the case of the petitioner and passed the order dated 7-11-1975. By this order, it was stated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records but he was asked to exercise his option as to whether he would like to go to that post. By this order, it was stated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records but he was asked to exercise his option as to whether he would like to go to that post. It appears that while passing this order, it was considered that he was being promoted from a Revenue Inspector to the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records, but it has not been considered that he was already working as a Naib Tahsildar since 1965 which was a post of the same cadre as that of Assistant Superintendent Land Records. Noticing this defect, it appears that he was given an option either to accept or not to accept his appointment as an Assistant Superintendent Land Records. It appears that as he did not accept this option, by the subsequent order by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected, it was stated that as he had not worked as Assistant Superintendent Land Records for 4 years, he could not be considered for promotion. It was contended by the learned Dy. Advocate General that this has happened because from Revenue Inspector to Assistant Superintendent Land Records and then to Superintendent Land Records is the normal channel of promotion in the Land Records section and ordinarily a Revenue Inspector is not promoted as a Naib Tahsildar in the Revenue Section of the Services and after 1972, as is indicated by the order of the State Government dated 16-9-1972, Naib Tahsildars were to be appointed only by direct selection through Public Service Commission. It is contended that in order to regularise this appointment of the petitioner, the order was passed in 1975 giving him the option for the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records and as he did not accept that option, it appears the State Government rejected his representation by saying that he could only be promoted as Superintendent Land Records after he had worked as Assistant Superintendent Land Records for 4 years. Neither in the Return nor during arguments any rules which were in force in 1965 were produced by either of the parties. It is not disputed that the petitioner was a Revenue Inspector and was promoted as a Naib Tahsildar by order dated 20-2-1965. In this order, the learned Dy. Advocate General laid emphasis on the word 'Sthanapanna' by indicating that this promotion was ad hoc. It is not disputed that the petitioner was a Revenue Inspector and was promoted as a Naib Tahsildar by order dated 20-2-1965. In this order, the learned Dy. Advocate General laid emphasis on the word 'Sthanapanna' by indicating that this promotion was ad hoc. Even if it is assumed that this promotion is ad hoc, it is not disputed that the petitioner was never sent back as a Revenue Inspector, but continued as a Naib Tahsildar. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Naib Tahsildar for purposes of disposal of cases and, therefore, was posted in the revenue section of the services. It could not be disputed that since 1965 to 1975, he continued as a Naib Tahsildar and has not yet been confirmed, although in 1972, he was confirmed as a Revenue Inspector. It is also clear that till the Government orders in 1972 were issued, there is nothing to indicate that a Naib Tahsildar in the Revenue services could not be promoted as a Tahsildar. Even according to the contention raised by the State Government in the Return and the submission made by the learned Dy. Advocate General, a Naib Tahsildar posted in the Land Records section, could be promoted as a Superintendent Land Records and it is also apparent that a Naib Tahsildar is equivalent to Assistant Superintendent Land Records. It, therefore, appears that when the Government order dated 16-9-1972 was received, the department wanted to regularise the appointment of the petitioner and thought that he could now be appointed as an Assistant Superintendent Land Records but failed to notice that he was already working as a Naib Tahsildar for 10 years and, therefore, he was already in the same cadre as Assistant Superintendent Land Records for more than 10 years. It is, therefore, apparent that when in the year 1975, an order was passed directing the petitioner to take over as an Assistant Superintendent Land Records and he was given the option to accept or not to accept it, he chose not to accept as it was not a promotion, although in the order, it was stated to be promotion. It is, therefore, apparent that when in the year 1975, an order was passed directing the petitioner to take over as an Assistant Superintendent Land Records and he was given the option to accept or not to accept it, he chose not to accept as it was not a promotion, although in the order, it was stated to be promotion. It is stated in the order dated 7-11-1975 as under: Learned Deputy Advocate General also could not justify as to how a Naib Tahsildar could be promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records, but what was contended was that this promotion was treating the petitioner as a Revenue Inspector and, therefore, this order was issued. Apparently this could not have been done as the petitioner was already in the same cadre, it is also clear that if he were a Naib Tahsildar in the Land Records section, he could have been promoted as a Superintendent Land Records in 1972 itself as he had put in more than 4 years in the equivalent post. If the petitioner was promoted and posted as a Naib Tahsildar in the revenue section, it could not be said to be his fault. He was promoted from the post of a Revenue Inspector and on being promoted as a Naib Tahsildar, he was to perform the duties on a post on which the State Government chose to post him and if he was posted to do the revenue work in the direct line of the Revenue Service, it could not be said that he could not be considered for promotion as it was not his choice. It appears that the State Government felt the difficulty that having been posted as a Naib Tahsildar in the revenue line, the petitioner could only be promoted as a Tahsildar, but it appears that according to the stand taken by the State, the promotion of a Naib Tahsildar (Land Records) to the post of Superintendent Land Records is permissible as according to the State, a Naib Tahsildar who has not been directly recruited through the Public Service Commission, may not be entitled to promotion as a Tahsildar in the revenue section, but could only be promoted in the Land Records section. But still if the petitioner was promoted from Revenue Inspector to the cadre of a Naib Tahsildar apparently on the basis of the stand taken by the State Government, it could only be considered to be on promotion in the Land Records section and if he was promoted as a Naib Tahsildar in the Land Records section, he was holding: the post equivalent to that of Assistant Superintendent Land Records and under the rules if he had held the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records for 4 years, he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Land Records. It appears the State Government wanted to convert the post of the petitioner from Naib Tahsildar to Assistant Superintendent Land Records in 1975 for which there is no justification as he had already worked on that post as a Naib Tahsildar which is equivalent post, for more than 10 years. It is, therefore, apparent that if the State Government felt that the petitioner could not be promoted in the Revenue Service to the post of Tahsildar, but was only entitled to be promoted in the Land Records section as Superintendent Land Records, it was incumbent on the State Government to consider the petitioner for promotion after he had put in 4 years' service as Assistant Superintendent Land Records which is equivalent to Naib Tahsildar the post which he is holding since 1965. It is not disputed that he has not been considered for promotion so far to the post of Superintendent Land Records and unfortunately by order dated 9-7-1980, the State Government further tells him that he will not be considered for promotion unless he worked as an Assistant Superintendent Land Records for 4 years. This is without any justification and, therefore, cannot be maintained. The petition is, therefore, allowed. It is directed that as the petitioner has worked for more than 15 years on the post of Naib Tahsildar, the State Government shall consider him for promotion immediately, if found fit he shall be promoted as Superintendent Land Records. If the petitioner is promoted, the State Government shall consider his case of seniority and give him his appropriate place in the seniority list. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. The security amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. Petition allowed