JUDGMENT 1. The main grievance of the petitioner is about the failure of the respondent, Municipal Board to determine year-wise vacancies in the cadre of Nakedars and consequential non-promotion of the petitioner on the post of Nakedar. He has also prayed for quashing of the order for promotion of non-petition No. 3., Laxman Lal and has prayed that he may be ordered to be promoted as Nakedar w.e.f. 27.4.81 and be given all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Sub-Nakedar in the service of the Municipal Board, Bundi after regular selection. The order dated, 12.5.73 was issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, appointing the petitioner and four others as Sub-Nakedars. Subsequently, the petitioner was selected by the Rajasthan Panchayat and Local Bodies Subordinate Service Commission in pursuance of an advertisement No. 4/75. On that basis an order dated, 24.4.76 was issued by the Administrator of the Municipal Board, Bundi. In the provisional seniority list dated 15.5.82, the name of the petitioner has been placed at serious No. 4 in the category of Sub-Nakedars. The name of non-petitioner No. 3, Laxmanlal has been shown at serial No. 5. According to the petitioner, without considering his case the Municipal Board promoted Laxman Lai on the post of Nakedar by an order dated, 15.2.86. He represented to the authorities of the Municipal Board and higher authorities against this promotion. He also filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner against this promotion. The revision petition has. however, been rejected on 14.10.88. The petitioner has stated that although it is obligatory for the competent authority to make year-wise determination of vacancies in accordance with Rule 10 of Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate Minister Service) Rules, 1963, there has been a total failure in the present case so far as yearwise determination of vacancies is concerned. The result has been that notwithstanding availability of clear vacant post in the cadre of Nakedars, the petitioner has not been promoted. 3. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the non-petitioners. On 20th July 1992 this Court had made a clear that last opportunity is given to the non-petitioners to file reply, despite that reply has not been filed. 4. 3. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the non-petitioners. On 20th July 1992 this Court had made a clear that last opportunity is given to the non-petitioners to file reply, despite that reply has not been filed. 4. The main argument advanced by Shri S.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the non-petitioners have failed to discharge their statutory obligation of making yearwise determination of vacancies and this caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, in as much as, he has been denied a right of consideration for promotion to the post of Nakedar. Shri Jindal has accrued that Rule 10 of 1963 rules is mandatory and there is absolutely no justification for non-compliance of this mandatory rule. Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 3, has not been able to controvert this submission of Shri Jindal. So far as the Dy. Government Advocate is concerned, she expressed that no factual report has been sent to her by the non-petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, she is not in a position to state as to why determination of vacancies has not been made. 5. This Court has, time and again, laid down that the rule regarding year-wise determination of vacancies imposes a mandatory obligation on the departmental authorities to make year-wise determination of vacancies. In several cases, a writ of mandamous has been issued for such determination of vacancies. 6. In Dr. M.P. Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan, 1978 WLN (UC) 383 , H.K. Hingorani v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 WLN (UC) 421 , State v. Govind Narain D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 544/89, decided on 7.8.89 , Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1990 (2) RLR 1 , this Court has held that every competent authority is duty bound to make yearwise determination of vacancies. Rule 10 of 1963 Rules has also been held to be mandatory in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 768/87, Satya Narain Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 20.8.90. That was a case regarding the cadre of Naka Guards. It has been held therein that : "As far as yearwise determination of vacancies is concerned, rule similar to rule 10 of 1963 Rules has been interpreted by this Court in a number of decisions. Reference in this connection may be made to Dr. That was a case regarding the cadre of Naka Guards. It has been held therein that : "As far as yearwise determination of vacancies is concerned, rule similar to rule 10 of 1963 Rules has been interpreted by this Court in a number of decisions. Reference in this connection may be made to Dr. M.P. Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan, 1978 WLN (UC) 383 H.K. Hingorani v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 WLN (UC) 421 and the recent decision of this Court in State of Govind Narain and others D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 544/89. In the light of these decisions, it must be held that the respondent No. 2 was under an obligation to make determination of yearwise vacancies in the cadre of Naka guards and fill them up according to the rules in force at particular time. The respondents have however, failed to carry out this mandatory obligation imposed on them by rule 10 of 1963 Rules." 7. In view of the above decision it must be held that the Municipal Board, Bundi was under an obligation to make year-wise determination of vacancies and take steps for, making yearwise promotions and that it has failed to discharge the aforesaid mandatory obligation. So far as the promotion of non-petitioner No. 3 is concerned, I do not find any justification to interfere with the temporary promotion of non-petitioner No. 3, because the order dated, 14.10.88 by which the revision petition of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Revenue Commissioner, has not been challenged in this writ petition. Once that order has become final, there is no justification for quashing of the said order. 8. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The non-petitioner, Municipal Board, Bundi is directed to make yearwise determination of vacancies in the cadre of Nakedars in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 of 1963 Rules and also to make promotions against the vacancies so determined. The Municipal Board should consider the case of all eligible persons on the basis of yearwise vacancies and accord promotion to all those persons including the petitioner who are found suitable for promotion and also to give them all consequential benefits. This exercise must be undertaken and completed within a period of six months of the submission of certified copy of this order. Prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the promotion of non-petitioner No. 3 is rejected. This exercise must be undertaken and completed within a period of six months of the submission of certified copy of this order. Prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the promotion of non-petitioner No. 3 is rejected. 9. Costs made easy.Petition Partly Allowed . *******