JUDGMENT 1. - Since the common questions of law are involved in all these three petitions, the same are disposed of by one single order. 2. The first ground of challenge is that Rule 28(6) of the Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1981 be declared as discriminatory and arbitrary as they are in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of sub-rule 4, 5 and 6 of the Rule 28 reads as under:- "(4) subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), selection for promotion from the posts of Legal Assistant to the posts of Head Legal Assistant in the Service shall be made strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the persons who have put in at last five years service, unless a different period is prescribed elsewhere in these rules, on the first day of the month of April of the year of selection on the post or category of post from which selection is to be made : Provided that in the event of non-availability of period of service of five years, the Committee may consider the persons having less than the prescribed period of service, if he fulfils the qualifications and other conditions for promotion prescribed elsewhere in these rules, and are found otherwise suitable for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. (5) Selection for promotion from the posts of Head Legal Assistant to the post of Assistant Legal Draftsman/Assistant Legal Remembrancer in the Service shall be made on the basis of merit and on the basis of seniority-cum- merit in the proportion of 50:50. Provided that if the Committee is satisfied that suitable persons are not available for selection by promotion strictly on the basis of merit in a particular year, selection by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit may be made in the same manner as specified in these rules. Explanation- If in the Service, in any category of posts, number of posts available for promotion, is an odd number then for purpose of deter- mining the vacancies for selection by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and merit in the proportion of 50:50 the following cyclic order shall be followed: The first vacancy by seniority-cum-merit; The subsequent vacancy by merit; The cycle to be repeated. (6) Selection for promotion from the posts of Assistant Legal Draftsman/' Assistant Legal Remembrancer to the service shall always be made on the basis of merit alone." 3. The provisions of sub-rule(7) which was substituted on 11th May, 1976 are as under:- "Selection for promotion to the highest post/posts in the State Service shall always be made on the basis of merit alone ; provided that:- (a) in a service or groups or sections thereunder, where there are only two scales e.g. junior scale or senior scale and there is only one promotion then promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit alone ; (b) in a service or groups or sections thereunder where there are three scales e.g. junior scale, senior scale and selection scale and there are two promotions then promotions will be as under:- (i) first promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. (ii) second promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and merit in the proportion of 50:50. (iii) in service or Groups or Sections thereunder, where there are more than two promotions then first promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit alone and promotion to subsequent higher posts shall be made on the basis of seniority- cum-merit and merit in the proportion of 50:50 except to the higher post." 4. Before the constitution of Rajasthan State Legal Service there was Rajasthan Legal Subordinate Service Rules, 1976 and there were only two posts namely; Legal Assistant and Head Legal Assistant. The post of Legal Assistant was to be filled up 100% by recruitment and the post of Head Legal Assistant was to be filled up 100% by promotion. There was no State Legal Service in existence. The Rajasthan Legal Service Rules, 1981 were promulgated on 20th July, 1981. The tide of these rules was changed on 27th July, 1985 as Rajasthan Legal and Subordinate Service Rules, 1981. Prior to 1983 the post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer was the highest post in the service and by an amendment dated 9.6.1983 the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer was included in the Schedule and same became the highest post in the service. The Schedule as amended is as under:- 5. Prior to 1983 the post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer was the highest post in the service and by an amendment dated 9.6.1983 the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer was included in the Schedule and same became the highest post in the service. The Schedule as amended is as under:- 5. Name of Method of Qualification Post from Experience Remarks S. No. Name of the post Method of recruitment Qualification for direct recruitment Post for which promotion is to be made Experience for promotion Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Joint Legal Remembrancer 100% by promotion - Deputy Legal Remembrancer 5 years experience of the post mentioned in column 5 2 Dy. Legal Remambrancer 100% by promotion - Assistant Legal Draftsman/Asstt. Legal Remembrancer 5 Years experience of the post mentioned in Column 5 3 Assistant Legal Draftsman/ Assistant Legal Remembrancer 100% by promotion - Head Legal Assistant 5 Years experience of the post mentioned in Column 5 4 Head Legal Assistant 100% by promotion - Legal Assistant 5 years service on the posts mentioned in column 5 5 Legal Assistant 100% direct recruitment Must bee Law Graduate from a University established by law in India or its equivalent with three years course of Proficiency degree - - It is submitted that there is no provision as to how the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer has to be filled in and the post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer which is next highest post after Joint Legal Remembrancer post has been specified to be filled in by merit alone. The post of Assistant Legal Draftsman/Assistant Legal Remembrancer and Head Legal Assistant are required to be filled up by 50% on seniority-cum-merit and 50% by merit basis. The post of Head Legal Assistant is to be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The post of Legal Assistant is to be filled up the direct recruitment. 6. The post of Assistant Legal Draftsman/Assistant Legal Remembrancer and Head Legal Assistant are required to be filled up by 50% on seniority-cum-merit and 50% by merit basis. The post of Head Legal Assistant is to be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The post of Legal Assistant is to be filled up the direct recruitment. 6. It has been submitted that according to the procedure framed for Departmental Promotion Committees meetings it has been provided in Part II Rule 1(6) which is as under:- PART II RULE 1(6) "Selection for promotion to all other higher posts or higher categories of posts in the State Service shall made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the proportion of 50:50 provided that if the Committee is satisfied that suitable persons are not available for selection by promotion strictly on the basis of merit in a particular year, selection by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit may be made in the same manner as specified in these rules." 7. It is submitted that when the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer was inserted in the Schedule of 1983 a corresponding change should have been made in the main Rule 28 so as to bring in confirmity with the provisions of other service rules of the State. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner inadvertent mistake has been committed by the respondents which has resulted in discriminatory and arbitrary exercise of the power. In all the rules it is submitted that the highest post is to be filled up by merit alone and on that basis the highest post of Joint Legal Remembrancer has to be filled up by merit alone. The next post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer should have been filled up by 50% on merit and 50% on seniority-cum-merit basis instead of 100% on merit alone. The subsequent post of Assistant Legal Remembrancer should have been filled up 100% on seniority- cum-merit instead of 50% on merit and 50% of seniority-cum-merit basis. The post of Head Legal Assistant is to be filled upon the basis of seniority-cum-merit only. 8. So far as the post of Legal Assistant is concerned, it is 100% by direct recruitment and there is no dispute in respect thereof. The post of Head Legal Assistant is to be filled upon the basis of seniority-cum-merit only. 8. So far as the post of Legal Assistant is concerned, it is 100% by direct recruitment and there is no dispute in respect thereof. It was by virtue of an amendment on 9th June, 1983 by which the schedule has amended to include the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer which was created the grievance to the petitioner with regard to the mode of recruitment on the subsequent post. It is submitted that according to the procedure the highest post of Joint Legal Remembrancer could be filled up 100% by merit alone. The dispute is with regard to the post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer. The Rajasthan Legal Service Rules, 1981 were changed to Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1981 and the services were divided into State and Subordinate Services. The post of Legal Assistant was kept in the Subordinate Service and that of the Head Legal Assistant, Assistant Legal Draftsman/Assistant Legal Remembrancer, Deputy Legal Remembrancer and Joint Legal Remembrancer were considered in the State Services. It is submitted that the manner in which the selection for the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer is to be made has not been provided in the rules but on the basis of the general Service Rules, the highest post has to be filled up on merit and, therefore, so far as the selection for the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer is concerned, it can be filled up on .merit alone. The next post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer which has been provided under the rules to be filled up on the basis of merit alone is said to be discriminatory on the ground that in another service rules the second to the highest post has been provided to be filled in on the basis of merit alone. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the services of the State have to be treated similarly and it should be considered to be one legislation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the services of the State have to be treated similarly and it should be considered to be one legislation. Any discrimination in the two services of the State is violative of Article j 14 of the Constitution and in support of his contention reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar, AIR 1954 S.C. 493 , wherein it was observed that:- "It is conceivable that when the same legislature enacts two different laws but in substance they form one legislation, it might be open to the Court to disregard the form and treat them as one law and strike it down, if in their conjunction they result in discrimination. But such a course is not open where the two laws sought to be read in conjunction are by different Governments and by different legislatures. Article 14 does not authorise the striking down of a law of one State on the ground that in contrast with a law of another State on the same subject its provisions are discriminatory. Nor does it contemplate a law of the Centre or of the State dealing with similar subjects being held to be unconstitutional by a process of comparative study of the provisions of the two enactments. The sources of authority for the two statutes being different. Article 14 can have no application." Held that the scale of dearness allowance recommended by the Central Pay Commission and sanctioned by the Central Government could furnish no ground for holding that the scale of dearness allowance recommended by the Pay Committee and adopted by the State Government by the impugned resolution, was repugnant to Article 14." 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer has been treated differently than the other services and no reasons have been given and, therefore, this being the position in the same Legislation, the differential treatment is discriminatory. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer has been treated differently than the other services and no reasons have been given and, therefore, this being the position in the same Legislation, the differential treatment is discriminatory. 10. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, 1983 (1) S.C.C. 305 : [1983(2) SLR 246 (S.C.) ] wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that:- "Article 14 authorises class legislation but permits reasonable classifications for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute in question." 11. It is submitted that in accordance with the above principle it is for the respondents to satisfy that there was any rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved. In the present matter the provision of Rule 28(6) results in discrimination between the Legal Service Rules and other Service Rules and the State has failed to satisfy the twin tests of reasonable classification and rational principle as enunciated in the judgment of the Apex Court in D.S. Nakaras case. The said legislation in contrary to the principles which have been laid down by the Apex Court in the said case and those are as under:- "The thrust of the Article 14 is that the citizen is entitled to equality before law and equal protection of laws. In the very nature of things the society being composed of unequals a welfare State will have to strive by both executive and legislative action to help the less fortunate in the society to ameliorate their condition so that the social and economic inequality in the society may be bridged. This would necessitate a legislation applicable to a group of citizens otherwise unequal and amelioration of whose lot is the object of State affirmative action. In the absence of doctrine of classification such legislation is likely to flounder on the bed rock of equality enshrined in Article 14. This would necessitate a legislation applicable to a group of citizens otherwise unequal and amelioration of whose lot is the object of State affirmative action. In the absence of doctrine of classification such legislation is likely to flounder on the bed rock of equality enshrined in Article 14. The Court realistically appraising the social stratification and economic inequality and keeping in view the guidelines on which the State action must move as constitutionally laid down in Part IV of the Constitution, evolved the doctrine of classification. The doctrine was involved to sustain a legislation or State action designed to help weaker sections of the society or some such segments of the society in need of succour." 12. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, A.I.R 1978 S.C. 851 , wherein it has been held as under "When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out." 13. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in 1990(1) RLR 137 Narayan Singh v. State of Rajasthan wherein the upper age limit prescribed for Forest Guard was 28 years while for other services in the same Rules the prescribed upper age limit was 31 years, this Court has held it to be discriminatory and it was directed that age limit of 28 years should be read as 31 years. It is submitted that on the basis of the analogy of this judgment the second highest post should have been considered to be at par as is for other services. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner the posts of Assistant Legal Remembrancer and Deputy Legal Remembrancer are in the category of intervening post and the post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer being considered for merit alone has affected the rights of the petitioners more so because the employer is one. 14. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner the posts of Assistant Legal Remembrancer and Deputy Legal Remembrancer are in the category of intervening post and the post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer being considered for merit alone has affected the rights of the petitioners more so because the employer is one. 14. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555, wherein it was observed as under:- "The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle ? It is a founding faith, to use the word of Bose, J. a way of life, and it must not be subjected to a narrow pendantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance, any attempt to truncate its all embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antethetic to arbitrariness." 15. It is submitted that the State of Rajasthan has not justified by any evidence on record with regard to the basis of the classification nor it has been shown that there was any reasonable consideration for any particular purpose to be achieved for giving different treatment to the post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer. It is also submitted that the State Government has moved for amendment of those rules retrospectively which were subsequently turned down and, therefore, prayer has been made that the State should be directed to amend the Rules retrospectively. 16. The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General is that no directions can be given for amendment of the Rule 28(6) of 1986 Rules in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of J & K v. A.R. Zakki, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1546 : [1992(3) SLR 3 (S.C.)] , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a particular legislation. Same is true as regards the executive when it exercises the power to make rules, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation. Same is true as regards the executive when it exercises the power to make rules, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation. It has also been submitted that there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the legal service is in itself a class and it cannot be compared with the other services of the State. The different services are governed by different Rules and simply because in other service Rules the second highest post is not to be filled in by merit alone it cannot be said to be a discriminatory exercise of power. It is submitted that the manner in which the selection is to be made is prerogative of the State and if for the Legal Services the second highest post is be filled in by merit alone it cannot be alleged that any discrimination has been caused. 17. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of The State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and others, A.I.R. 1974 S.C . 1 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that "Since the constitutional code of equality and equal opportunity is a charter for equals, equality of opportunity in matters of promotion means an equal promotional opportunity for persons who fall, substantially, within the same class. A classification of employees can, therefore, be made for first identifying and then distinguishing members of one class from those of another." 18. The learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that the various posts in Legal Service cannot be equated with the services of the other department and in this regard reliance has been placed on the decision of Secretary Finance Department v. West Bengal Registration Service Association, MR 1992 S.C. 1203 : [1992(2) SLR 82 (S.C.)] , wherein it has been held that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) and Judicial Magistrates in the matter of pay scale cannot be equated as their nature of work are different and unequal and on this ground the judgment of the High Court directing to pay the equal pay was set aside. It was held that there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of equation of posts and equation of salary. It is the primary function of the executive and not of the judiciary. 19. It was held that there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of equation of posts and equation of salary. It is the primary function of the executive and not of the judiciary. 19. Arguments of both the learned counsel have been considered. For the purpose of examining the validity of rules, the discrimination which has been alleged has to be adjudged from the points as to whether ; (1) The State is empowered to frame a rule by which beside the highest post of the cadre, the second highest post can also be filled in on the basis of merit alone? (2) Whether not providing recruitment on second highest post on the basis of merit alone in other services than legal services amounts to discrimination? (3) Whether the legal services constitute a class in itself and is there any discrimination of the employees of this class ? 20. So far as the first point is concerned, it is not disputed that the Rules could be framed by the State Government in the manner that besides the highest post of a cadre the second highest post can also be filled on the basis of merit. Thus there is competency in framing all the rules. The dispute is that in other services such type of provision does not exist. Notification dated 12.5.78 has not included Rajasthan Legal Subordinate Service Rules, 1976 within the purview of the said amendment. Beside this sub-rule 7 of Rule 1 of D.P.C. Rules and Procedure Part-II selection for promotion to the highest post/posts in the State Service shall always be made on the basis of merit alone and thus this rule would be applicable for the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer. Clause (c) of sub-rule 7 however, provides in the services or groups or sections thereunder where there are more than two promotions then first promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit alone and promotions to the subsequent highest post shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and merit in proportion of 50:50 except to the highest post. Clause (c) of sub-rule 7 however, provides in the services or groups or sections thereunder where there are more than two promotions then first promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit alone and promotions to the subsequent highest post shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and merit in proportion of 50:50 except to the highest post. This Rule is of a general nature and will have no application in a case where it has specifically been provided that the selection for promotion from the post of Assistant Legal Draftsman/Assistant Legal Remembrancer to the post of Deputy Legal Remembrancer in the service shall always be made on the basis of merit alone. On the basis of the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant the provisions of Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1981 shall prevail on the basis of special language used in sub-rule 6 of Rule 28 and the general provisions of Service Rules shall not be applicable. The question now remains whether a discrimination could be said to have been created by the State Government in framing the Rules. The services in different cadres are of a different nature and even the nature of work rendered in the legal Service is different than the other services. So far as the persons employed in the Legal Service they cannot challenge any discrimination in the service itself. The other services being of a different nature cannot be a ground for declaring the provisions of Rule 28(6) as discriminatory. The objection in this regard is having no substance and is rejected. 21. The submission that the rules which now the Government wants to amend is only with prospective effect has no substance inasmuch as it is for the Government to frame the rule in any particular manner whether prospectively or retrospectively and since the validity has been upheld still it will be open for the Government to amend the rule in the manner it likes. If the amendment affects the fundamental rights of any person he will be free to challenge the same but no direction can be given to amend rule or to amend it retrospectively as prayed since the validity of rule is upheld on the ground of competence and being not violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. 22. The next contention which has been raised is that the explanation to Rule 28(9) provides that for the purpose of selection for promotion on the basis of merit, officers with outstanding or consistently very good record shall only be selected and their names arranged in order of seniority. It is submitted that this explanation was inserted to give effect to the existing practice but the persons who have been promoted namely ; Shri P.N. Mathur, Ram Niwas Sharma, Smt. Subodh Laxman, Sitaram Seth and Ram Gopal Sharma were not having outstanding or consistently very good marks in their APARs pertaining to preceding 7 years. It is alleged that none of the these persons are meritorious and they have wrongly been selected. The relevant APARs were for the year 1981-82 to 1988-89 since the vacancy was for the year 1989-90 and for the vacancies of 1987-88 the relevant APARs were for the year 1979-80 to 1986-87 and the DPC has considered the APARs for the year 1982-83 to 1989-90 which was relevant to the vacancy of 1990-91 only. It is also submitted that relevant APARs of Moti Ram Advani were not available and APAR of Shri Ram Gopal were filled up by Shri Praveen Kumar Bhatia the officer under w'hom he has not worked at all. The APAR of Shri Ram Gopal were received on 5.11.90 when the DPC met. The APAR of Shri R.C. Jain was not before the DPC pertaining to the year 1987-88. It has been submitted that beside the irregularities committed in selection on the basis of merit if the meritorious candidates were not available then the posts should have been filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit since out of 5 vacancies for 1990-91, 3 posts were filled up and two vacancies could not be filled on the ground that no persons on merit could be promoted. 23. In the matter of Moti Ram Advani it is submitted that it was the duty of the respondent to have made available annual confidential report to the Departmental Promotion Committee as the petitioner was within the zone of consideration and the annual confidential reports were submitted by the petitioner at the relevant time to the concerned reporting officer and the letter dated 29th August, 1990 was issued at the nick of time. 24. 24. The submission of the learned Advocate General is that though there was no rule earlier for consideration of the APRs for 7 years but in fact this procedure has been followed and no illegality has been committed and the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not in accordance with the correct facts and law. 25. The file containing the APRs and the file of the DPC were called and have been perused. There was one post for the year 1986-87 which was filled up by giving promotion to Shri S.C. Jain which is not in dispute in these petitions. There was one vacancy for the year 1987-88 against which Shri F.N. Mathur was promoted and against one vacancy of 1989-90 Shri Ram Niwas was promoted. There were four vacancies of 1990-91 out of which three have been filled up by giving promotion to Smt. Subodh Laxman, Ram Gopal Sharma and Shri Sita Ram Sethi and one post is still lying vacant. Shri P.N. Mathur was selected on the basis of vacancy of 1987-88 and the APARs of 7 years were sent. Only one APR was not available and was not produced before the D.P.C. In this regard the Circular No. F 6(29) APPTT/A-1/66 dated 5.1.1966 has been cited wherein it has been provided that if the annual confidential report of an officer is not available then assessment of merit should be based on the basis of report for preceding and succeeding years. 26. The grievance of the petitioners is mainly on the basis of the ground that the ACRs of last 7 years should have been considered for the purposes of selection in promotion quota and in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahesh Prasad Mathur v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 359/1985 decided on 18th July 1985 and referred in Randhir Singh v. State of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3273/1987 decided on 9th April 1990 , this court has upheld the view of the D.P.C. that the A.C.Rs of last 7 years should be taken into consideration. The explanation to subrule (11) of Rule 28-A of the Rules of 1954 was also taken into consideration, which provides that for the purposes of selection for promotion on the basis of merit, the officers with outstanding and consistently very good record shall only be selected and their names shall be arranged in the order of seniority. The explanation before April 11, 1979 provided that for the purposes of selection on the basis of merit, the list of officers graded as outstanding and very good shall be classified as first category in the order Of seniority, the officers graded as good shall be classified as Second category and the officers graded as Average shall be classified as Third category It was held by this Court that only the outstanding or consistently very good record has to be taken into consideration and that has to be for seven years. In the present matter, the respondents who have been given promotions apparently are not having outstanding or very good A.C.Rs for 7 years. It has been submitted that the promotions have been given on the basis of A.C.Rs of 5 years. In view of the judgment given by this Court in Randhir Singhs case, referred to above, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent authorities to have examined the A.C.Rs for 7 years and only those candidates, who were having outstanding or very good A.C.Rs should have been considered. Since this procedure has not been followed, the orders in this regard are hereby quashed and it is directed that for the purposes of promotion on merit basis, the A.C.Rs for previous 7 year should be considered and the candidates who are having outstanding or very good A.C.Rs should alone be given promotions on merit. The respondents shall also consider the A.C.Rs of the petitioners as well and if the relevant A.C.Rs of all the 7 years are showing outstanding or very good remarks, then the claim of the petitioners may also be considered. The A.C.Rs of Moti Ram Advani were not considered as they were not available and the same may also be considered now. 27. The A.C.Rs of Moti Ram Advani were not considered as they were not available and the same may also be considered now. 27. From the above discussion, it is evident that respondents No. 2 to 6 in Writ Petitions No. 5902/1990 and 5903/1990 and respondents No. 2 to 5 in Writ Petition No. 701/1991 were given promotions even though they did not have 7 years outstanding or consistently very good ACRs to their credit. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed and promotions given to these respondents are set aside. It is directed that fresh DPC shall be held within a period of three months to re-consider the promotions of the petitioners as well as respondents mentioned above and the promotions on merit basis shall be given only, if any of them has outstanding or consistently very good ACRs for the preceding 7 years. However, the respondents mentioned above, shall be allowed to continue on their present posts, till the DPC considers the matter de novo, in the light of the directions given above. 28. The writ petitions are allowed, as above, with no order as to costs.Petitions allowed. *******