JUDGMENT : 1. Both these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. For the convenient disposal of both these writ petitions the facts given in the case of Sukhdarshan Singh v. State of Rajasthan,  (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 773 of 1988) are taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order dated 25.3.1988 may be declared invalid and be quashed and the respondents may be directed to restore the petitioner to the post of Ziledar with all consequential benefits. 4. The petitioner entered the service of the Irrigation Department on being appointed as Patwari on 1.2.1958. He was confirmed with effect from 1.7.1959, and in the final seniority list published on 4.4.1987, the name of the petitioner has been shown at S. No. 27. The petitioner is a matriculate and passed the Patwar Examination. The Chief Engineer vide communication dated 24.7.1987 wrote to various authorities that the service record along with 5 years confidential rolls of the Patwaries whose names have been shown in the final seniority list at S.No. 1 to 80 be sent to him. In this letter the petitioner's name appeared at S.No. 28. A copy of the letter, dated 24.7.1987 has been placed on the record as Annexure-2. Thereafter, on 25.1.1.988 the petitioner was accorded promotion to the post of Ziledar on temporary basis with the stipulation that this appointment by promotion is accorded on temporary basis, therefore, he will not be entitled to any salary and allowances and other benefits attached to the post of Ziledar. It is also mentioned that it is without prejudice to the selection to be made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is alleged that the persons whose names though mentioned in the order dated 24.7.1987 does not find place in the order dated 25.1.1988 are those who either declined to avail the appointment as Ziledar or because they had already been promoted as Ziledar. Thereafter, the order dated 25.3.1988 was made cancelling the order dated 25.1.1988. In this order; it has been mentioned that this is being done as the seniority is proposed to be revised. Thereafter, the order dated 25.3.1988 was made cancelling the order dated 25.1.1988. In this order; it has been mentioned that this is being done as the seniority is proposed to be revised. The order further says that the senior most Patwari will take charge of the post vacated by those who were appointed by the orders dated 25.1.1988, 27.1.1988 and 26.2.1988 and the order dated 25.1.1988 being the one whereby the petitioner was promoted as Ziledar. The order dated 25.3.1988 has been placed on the record as Annexure-4. The resultant position is that the order of promotion of the petitioner was cancelled by the order dated 25.3.1988 (Annexure-4), therefore, the petitioner has riled the present writ petition. It is alleged by the petitioner that the persons who were below him in the seniority list i.e. persons shown at S.Nos. 231, 233, 262 and 266 were promoted as Ziledar earlier to him, though they were junior to him but prompted because of the reason that they obtained Bachelor's Degree. It is submitted that the service conditions of these persons are governed by the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules'). According to these Rules 70%58 of the posts of Ziledar are to be filled in by direct recruitment and 25% by way of promotion. The patwaries who are matriculates and have 9 years service to their credit as Patwaries are entitled for promotion under these Rules. Therefore, it is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Ziledar and the persons junior to him have not been reverted simply because the were graduates. Simply because the seniority list is now sought to be altered, the petitioner who is senior to the persons who have been retained on the post of Ziledar cannot be reverted for promoting them against the promotion quota. It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to determine year-wise vacancies under Rule 9 of the Rules and, thereafter, promote the persons in accordance with the Rules against the promotion quota. 5. A reply has been filed by the respondents and the respondents have not disputed the seniority position. It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to determine year-wise vacancies under Rule 9 of the Rules and, thereafter, promote the persons in accordance with the Rules against the promotion quota. 5. A reply has been filed by the respondents and the respondents have not disputed the seniority position. However, it is submitted that the petitioner's promotion was purely temporary and in terms of the order of the petitioner's promotion he has no right to continue on the post as it was clearly mentioned in the order that the promotion is temporary and he can be reverted, at any moment. Therefore, in terms of the temporary promotion order the petitioner has been reverted. It is also alleged that the persons mentioned at S. Nos. 231, 233, 262 and 266 in the seniority list were appointed as Ziledar but not promoted. These persons were appointed as Ziledar against the direct recruitment quota. It is submitted that there were some error in the seniority list of Patwaries issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 4.4.1987. Therefore, the same was withdrawn and the promotion orders based on that erroneous seniority list were cancelled by the order dated 25.3.1988. It is alleged that fresh tentative seniority list has been published by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 20.9.1989 and now the objections any, have been invited. It is submitted that this seniority list has not been finalised so far. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is true that the promotion of the petitioner was purely temporary and the same was sought to cancelled on account of the fact that there was some error in the seniority list. Therefore, the seniority list was withdrawn by the department and consequently, the petitioner who was promoted on the basis of that seniority list has been reverted back, but it seems that the matter remains pending here from 1988 and the both the learned counsel are not in a position to say that the seniority list has been finalised or not. Be that, as it may, the respondents are now directed to finalise the seniority list of Patwaries and accord necessary promotions to the eligible persons under the Rules of 1967. Be that, as it may, the respondents are now directed to finalise the seniority list of Patwaries and accord necessary promotions to the eligible persons under the Rules of 1967. If the seniority list has finalised then the Departmental Promotion Committee may be convened as early as possible so that the legitimate grievance of the persons can he redressed. If the seniority list has not been finalised so far, then the same may be finalised within a period of 3 months from today and thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee should, meet and accord promotion to the eligible incumbents within another period of 3 months. Till the whole process is completed, the petitioner shall not be reverted. 8. With these observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of.Order accordingly.