Honble CHOPRA, J.—These two writ petitions raise common question of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order/Judgment. (2) The facts, necessary to be noticed, for the disposal of these two writ petitions, briefly stated, are: FACTS OF MAHESH SINGHS CASE: The case of the petitioner is that he joined Rajasthan Judicial Service on 15.5.1973 and was posted as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. Later on, he was confirmed on the post of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. He has submitted that from September 1982 to June 1985, he worked as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangaria and from June 1985 to September 1985, he worked as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra. Bhadra and Sangaria towns are situated in Sri Ganganagar district. Thereafter, from 23.09.1985 to December 1985, he worked as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh in Churu district. According to him, his ACRs of the year 1983-84, 1984-85 were given by the District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar as also by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Churu and they gave a good chit to him but the Reviewing authority in his APARs of 1983-84 mentioned that his integrity is doubtful. In his APARs of the year 1984, it has been recorded that he is not a good Officer and integrity is doubtful. The Reviewing Authority has also recorded in his APARs of the year 1985 that he is not a good Officer. He has submitted that these remarks have been made by the Reviewing Authority without any basis. The aforesaid adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner vide letters dated 11.6.1986, 11.6.1986 and 16.8.1986. (3) Against these adverse entries, the petitioner made representations but they were rejected vide letters dated 1.2.1988 and 1.12.1988. According to the petitioner, the reasons for rejection of his representations were not conveyed to him. He has submitted that certain false and vague complaints were made against him during this period but the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, after enquiry, found those charges groundless. (4) He has further submitted that in the year 1984, his Court was inspected by Honble Mr. Justice K.S. Sidhu twice. The first was a regular inspection and the other was surprise inspection. However, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Order No. Esstt. (RJS)/104/85 dated 17.9.1985. (4) He has further submitted that in the year 1984, his Court was inspected by Honble Mr. Justice K.S. Sidhu twice. The first was a regular inspection and the other was surprise inspection. However, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Order No. Esstt. (RJS)/104/85 dated 17.9.1985. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order No. Estt/(RJS)/114/88 dated 10.6.1988 and thereafter he was given promotion in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service vide Order No. PA/9/(l)Judl./83 dated 27.2.1991. His promotion to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service was only for a period of six months but no such provision exists in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 (for short the Rules) to give promotion for a particular period. His promotion order to RHJS has been filed and marked as Annexure-4. This promotion was given to him under the provisions of R. 22 of the Rules. He was posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer vide order dated 6.3.1991 and from Jaisalmer, vide order dated 29.6.1991, he was transferred to the post of Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Cases, Jodhpur. His appointment to RHJS was further extended for a period of three months by the State Govt. vide its order dated 28.11.1991. However, the petitioner received some information that he is being reverted from RHJS to RJS on account of the Full Court Resolution dated 19.12.1991 and he has reason to believe that the Committee of Honble Judges which recommended his reversion have taken into consideration his 7 years ACRs including of the year 1984-85. According to him, when promotions were considered by the end of the year 1991, APARs from 1985-86 should have been considered. He has submitted that the rule reading to consideration of 7 years APARs was made applicable to his case only otherwise earlier, 3 to 5 years record was only looked into and this is what was done in the case of Shri R.P. Mitruka, Shri O.P. Gupta, Shri Mangal Chand Tailor, Shri S.S. Gupta, Smt. Kusum Bhandari, Shri Bhanwarlal Sharma, Shri K.C. Jain, Shri S.D. Bansal, Shri V.D. Gupta and number of other Officers. He has further submitted that despite these adverse ACRs of the year 1984-85, he has been promoted as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate as also Additional District & Sessions Judge and, therefore, all these adverse ACRs stand washed- off. It was contended that he has also been given selection scale of RJS by this very Full Court on the basis of seniority cum merit. He has, therefore, challenged his order of reversion from RHJS to RJS being without jurisdiction. (5) It was contended by the petitioner that the basis of his reversion is the adverse entries made in his APARs of the year 1984-85 and those entries cannot be considered now as after writing those adverse entries, he has been promoted on the posts of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Civil Judge-cum Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional District & Sessions Judge. He has submitted that actually those entries were considered by the Full Court when promotions were granted to him on the posts of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional District & Sessions Judge. The rule relating to consideration of 7 years APARs or ACRs cannot be made applicable to his case because the vacancies of Additional District & Sessions Judges have arisen prior to the acceptance of that rule itself. He has submitted that there is no such provision in the Rules which permits the High Court to review its own earlier decision whereby promotion has been accorded to an Officer from RJS to RHJS. If the petitioner is reverted to RJS cadre, he will suffer irreparable loss and will rank junior to at least 35 Officers. He has, therefore, prayed that the High Court be restrained from doing so and his seniority may be protected. He has further prayed that the adverse entries made in the year 1984-85 may be expunged. (6) A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, in which, it was contended that adverse entries pertaining to the year 1984-85 were conveyed to the petitioner and against those entries, he made a representation and that representation was considered and rejected and, therefore, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in M.P. Mittal Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (1) and eight other similar writ petitions, decided on 26.2.1990, the plea for expunging the Adverse entries made in the APARS of the petitioner in the year 1984-85, taken by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. It was submitted that Honble Mr. Justice K.S. Sidhu inspected the Court of the petitioner in the year 1983 and not in the year 1984. The averment as regards promotions of the petitioner to the posts of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate were not controverted but it was contended that his promotion to RHJS was purely temporary made on urgent adhoc temporary basis and, therefore, that will not confer any right on the petitioner. According to respondent No. 1, his candidature was considered on the basis of R. 22 of the Rules and, therefore, when regular promotion was considered, his case could be reconsidered. It was a tenure appointment and when a tenure appointment comes to an end, the services of such a tenured appointee could be terminated. It was submitted that on the basis of the decision taken by the Full Court in its meeting held on 9.11.1990, no orders were issued. The Full Court only considered the candidature of eligible candidates for promotions to RHJS cadre. It decided who are fit and who are not fit for promotion to RHJS cadre. As the tenure appointment of the petitioner expired, he automatically stands reverted to his original cadre because he was not found fit for promotion to RHJS cadre by the Full Court. The petitioner was not being reverted to RJS cadre as a measure of punishment. According to respondent No. 1, as the year 1991 was in progress when promotions to RHJS cadre were being considered, the past 7 years APARs and record of the eligible candidates were required to be considered and that period pertained to the year 1984 to 1990. It is true that past 7 years record was screened in all the cases and after considering that record of all eligible candidates the petitioner was not found fit for promotion to RHJS cadre by the Full Court and, therefore, it was not a case of any discrimination being exercised in his case. It is true that past 7 years record was screened in all the cases and after considering that record of all eligible candidates the petitioner was not found fit for promotion to RHJS cadre by the Full Court and, therefore, it was not a case of any discrimination being exercised in his case. (7) According to respondent No. 1, when the petitioner was promoted as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 1985, his APARs for the year 1985 and 1986 were not available and so, they could not be communicated to him and therefore, they were not taken into consideration. It was submitted that in M.P. Mittals case (supra), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that even after promotion, if the Officer concerned earned adverse entries then such tike or similar entries which existed against the petitioner prior to the promotions can be considered while considering his further promotion. It was submitted that the decision of the Full Court to consider past 7 years record does not violate the provisions of any rules. The High Court has already issued Order Annexure-R.l dated 8.1.1992 reverting the petitioner as Civil Judge cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate and that order, according to respondent No.l, is totally just and fair and, therefore, it cannot be quashed. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be submitted with Costs. (8) A rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which, the contentions which have been raised in the writ petition have been reiterated. Written submissions were also filed but when the case came up for arguments, oral submissions were made in detail and, therefore, these written submissions need not be referred to. FACTS OF NARAIN LALS CASE: (9) Petitioner Narainlal joined Rajasthan Judicial Service on 29.8.1973. He was promoted as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.6.1983 in pursuance of the Full Court resolution, on adhoc basis. He was reverted back as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate by the High Court vide its order dated 5.7.1984. He was promoted back as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17.9.1985 and as Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30.8.1988. He was further promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge on 27.2.1991. (10). He was reverted back as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate by the High Court vide its order dated 5.7.1984. He was promoted back as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17.9.1985 and as Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30.8.1988. He was further promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge on 27.2.1991. (10). It is alleged that the petitioner earned two adverse APARs in the year 1984 and 1985, These adverse entries were not communicated to him and, therefore, he did not make any representation in respect thereof. He was also promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge for a fixed term i.e. initially for a period of 6 months under r. 22 of the Rules and this period was further extended for a period of 3 months. Thereafter, it is alleged that he was sought to be reverted back as Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner did not receive any order of demotion but according to the petitioner, the State Govt. has issued such an order on 7.1.1992. At the time of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner was working as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. His categorical case is that adverse APARs for the year 1984 and 1985 were not communicated to him but the High Court has produced the record to show that those adverse APARs were communicated to him in the year 1986. Be that as it may, against those adverse entries, the petitioner has not made any representation. He has also sought to quash the order of his reversion from RHJS to RJS and maintenance of his seniority. (11) A return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, in which, almost similar pleas which have been taken in Mahesh Singhs case have been taken and it has been contended that his promotion was made on urgent temporary adhoc basis and, therefore, it confer no right on him. In the year 1984, his integrity has been reported to be doubtful and it has been further observed that his image in the public was not good. The Reviewing Authority recorded against him that he is of doubtful integrity and not punctual. His integrity certificate was withheld. In the year 1985, the reporting Officer remarked that he is not a good Officer and his relations with Bar were not cordial and he needs to be watched. According to respondent no. The Reviewing Authority recorded against him that he is of doubtful integrity and not punctual. His integrity certificate was withheld. In the year 1985, the reporting Officer remarked that he is not a good Officer and his relations with Bar were not cordial and he needs to be watched. According to respondent no. 1, both these adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner but he did not make any representation against them and, therefore, when the Full Court decided that while according promotions, 7 years past record should be looked into then the case of the petitioner was considered for regular promotion and after seeing his case, the Full Court held that he is not fit to be promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge and, therefore, he has been reverted back as Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was submitted that adverse entries in his APARs were written in the year 1986, after he was promoted as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and, therefore, the adverse entries written in the year 1985 were not considered as they were not communicated to him before 1986. It was claimed that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. (12) A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which, almost similar contentions which have been raised in the writ petition, have been reiterated. In addition to this, it was submitted that 27 persons who were junior to the petitioner have been promoted ignoring the case of the petitioner. An additional affidavit of one Shri Purshottam, Assistant Registrar, Rajasthan High Court has been filed, which shows that the adverse entries of the petitioner for the years 1984 and 1985 were conveyed to the petitioner on 11.6.1986 and 16.8.1986 respectively. Along with this affidavit, copies of the relevant entries in the Dispatch Register have been filed and marked as Annexure R. 2 and R.3 respectively. It was submitted that against these adverse entries, no such representation has been filed by the petitioner. (13) I have heard Mr. M.R. Singhvi and Mr. S.N. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. N.N. Mathur and Mr. N.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. C.R. Jhakar, the learned Deputy, Govt. Advocate for the State. I have also Carefully gone through the record of the case and have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. M.R. Singhvi and Mr. S.N. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. N.N. Mathur and Mr. N.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. C.R. Jhakar, the learned Deputy, Govt. Advocate for the State. I have also Carefully gone through the record of the case and have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. (14) It may be stated here that petitioner Narainlal was initially accorded promotion to the post of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in pursuance of the Full Courts Resolution dated 4/5.03.1983 and that promotion was totally on adhoc basis for one year. When his case was reviewed in the next meeting of the Full Court dated 25.05.1984, it was felt that he deserves to be demoted and consequently, he was demoted. No grouse has been made so far as that reversion is concerned. (15) However, petitioners Mahesh Singh and Narainlal were promoted as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in pursuance of the Full Court Resolution dated 23.9.1985. Item No. 5 of the Full Court Resolution. has been* produced for my perusal and it is captioned as Promotions of Officers in the rank of Munsif Magistrates to the rank of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates. The relevant portion of the Full Court Resolution dated 23.9.1985 reads as under:- "Whereas cases of 59 Munsif & Judicial Magistrates were considered for promotion to the post of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrates and the following 40 Officers were found suitable for promotion. Thus, in all cases of 59 Munsif & Judicial Magistrates were considered for promotion and out of them, only 40 Officers were found suitable for promotion and in the list of those 40 Officers found suitable, the names of petitioner Mahesh Singh and petitioner Narainlal stand at items No. 4 and 12 respectively. At item No. 12, against the name of petitioner Narainlal, there is a mention of Scheduled Caste, meaning there by that his case has been considered against the Scheduled Caste quota. It is, therefore, clear that the entire record of the petitioners was screened and out of 59 Officers, only 40 Officers were found suitable for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates. It is a case of conscious consideration of the candidatures, in which 19 Officers were not found suitable for promotion whereas only 40 Officers were found suitable for promotion. It is a case of conscious consideration of the candidatures, in which 19 Officers were not found suitable for promotion whereas only 40 Officers were found suitable for promotion. The persons who were not found suitable for promotion, their names also find place in this Resolution. It is nowhere mentioned in this Resolution that the adverse entries in respect of these Officers which were recorded prior to 23.9.1985 were not considered because they were not communicated to them. Rather, it has been recorded that the cases of these 59 Officers were considered and out of them, only 40 Officers were found suitable for promotion. When the petitioners have been found suitable for promotion to the post of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates on 23.9.1985, it clearly washes off their adverse entries so far as the years 1983 and 1984 are concerned. The law is well settled on this point. I will quote certain authorities on this point a little later but this much is clear that when the petitioners were found suitable for promotion to the posts of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates on 23.9.1985 by the Full Court, the adverse entries of the year 1983 and 1984 certainly stand washed off. Of course, it does not wash off their adverse entries of the year. 1985 because those entries were recorded against them on the expiry of the year 1985 and were communicated to them in the year 1986. (16) It was next contended that the petitioners were promoted as Civil Judge cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates in the year 1988 under r. 7-C of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 and that washes off their adverse entries of the year 1985. This contention cannot be sustained. R.7-A pertains to the promotions of Munsif & Judicial Magistrates to the posts of Civil Judges on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and r. 7-B provides for promotion to the posts of Senior Civil Judges on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Now, r. 7-B of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 has become redundant because no such posts of Senior Civil Judges exist in Rajasthan Judicial Service Appointments to the posts of Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates have to be made under r. 7- C of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955. The posts of Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judges-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates formed one cadre and they are in the same pay scales. The posts of Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judges-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates formed one cadre and they are in the same pay scales. The promotion/posting orders of the petitioners as Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates also show that from the posts of Civil Judges-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates, they were not promoted but were transferred and posted as Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates on the basis of the seniority that has been earned by them. Thus, from the post of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, there cannot be any promotion to the post of Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate under r. 7-C of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules. Under r. 7-A of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, appointments to the posts of Civil Judges shall be made by the Court by promotion from amongst the Officers holding a substantively the posts of Munsifs on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and r. 7-B provides that appointments to the post of Senior Civil Judges shall be made by the Court by promotion from amongst the Officers holding the posts of Civil Judges on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. As stated above, r-7B of the Rules has become redundant as no such post of Senior Civil Judges exists in the Rajasthan Judicial Services now. R. 7-C lays down that appointments to the posts of Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates shall be made by the Court by promotion from amongst the Officers holding posts of Senior Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates I Class, Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates I Class, Munsiffs and Judicial Magistrates I Class on the basis of merit, after taking the seniority in to consideration. Munsif & Judicial Magistrates I Class enjoys the power of awarding maximum three years punishment whereas the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrates can inflict punishment upto 7 years. R. 7-A of the Rules nowhere envisages promotions of Munsif & Judicial Magistrates to the posts of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrates. Under r. 7-A of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 a Munsif & Judicial Magistrate can be promoted either as purely Civil Judge or Civil Judge-cum-First Class Magistrate and not as Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. A combined reading of Sec. 7A & 7C of the Rules makes the entire situation crystal clear. That promotion as Civil Judge cum Addl. Under r. 7-A of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 a Munsif & Judicial Magistrate can be promoted either as purely Civil Judge or Civil Judge-cum-First Class Magistrate and not as Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. A combined reading of Sec. 7A & 7C of the Rules makes the entire situation crystal clear. That promotion as Civil Judge cum Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate can only be accorded under r. 7-C of the Rules and not under r. 7-A of the Rules and, therefore, transfer or posting of these Officers in the year 1988 from the post of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to that of Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate does not wash-off their earlier adverse entries recorded in their APARs of the year 1985 and therefore, to that extent, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted. (17) It was next contended that the cases of the petitioners for promotion from Rajasthan Judicial Service to Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services i.e. from the post of Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate to the posts of Additional District & Sessions Judges were considered by the Full Court in its meeting held on 19.11.1990. Item No. 18 of the Resolution of the Full Court, which met on 19.11.1990 pertains to the Promotions of Officers from the Cadre of Civil Judges-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrates/Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates to the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, which reads as under : — "Resolved that on consideration of over all performance and after perusal of the relevant service records, the following Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates/Civil Judges-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrates are found fit for promotion to the cadre of RHJS under r. 22 of the RHJS, 1969." In that resolution, the names of the petitioners Mahesh Singh and Narainlal find place at S.No. 2 and 8 respectively. By that Resolution, it was also resolved that the first three Officers including petitioner Mahesh Singh shall be given substantive appointment and the remaining Officers shall be given appointment/promotion on temporary basis for a period of six months and they shall have to make room for the direct recruits as and when they are selected for being appointed as Additional District & Sessions Judges. By this Resolution, the cases of certain other Officers were also considered on the basis of their over all performance and after perusal of their relevant service records, they were not found fit for promotion to the cadre of RHJS. That includes the names of 11 Officers. Thus, the High Court after perusal of the relevant service record and over all performance found the petitioners Mahesh Singh and Narainlal fit for promotion to the cadre of RHJS. Petitioner Mahesh Singh was ordered to be promoted on officiating basis whereas petitioner Narainlal was ordered to be promoted on temporary basis initially for a period of six months. (18) It may be stated here that the operation of the aforesaid Resolution of the Full Court was stayed by the Full Court in its meeting held on 30.11.1990 and it was resolved by the Full Court that its resolution dated 9.11.1990 pertaining to the item No. 18 be kept in abeyance and the respective Inspecting Judges of various Judgeships where Officers concerned were/are posted were requested to give their annual remarks with regard to their work and conduct in a respect of the years 1988-89 and 1989-90. Consequently, item No. 18 of the Full Court Resolution dated 9.11.1990 was stayed. (19) The next Full Court meeting took place on 19;12.1991 and in that meeting, it was resolved by the Full Court that in the matter of promotions from RJS to RHJS cadre, the record of concerned Officer for the past 7 years be taken into consideration. It appears that a Committee was constituted to scrutinise the record of all eligible Officers and on that basis, the record of these two Officers was also Scrutinised and on the basis of the report of the Committee, the Full Court resolved that the following Officers are not found fit for promotion to RHJS cadre and that includes the names of the petitioners Mahesh Singh and Narainlal and consequently, the aforesaid reversion orders have been passed. (20) Mr. M.R. Singhvi and Mr. S.N. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have contended that as soon as the petitioners were considered for promotion to the cadre of RHJS, and their names were approved by the Full Court, their earlier adverse APARs stand washed off. (20) Mr. M.R. Singhvi and Mr. S.N. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have contended that as soon as the petitioners were considered for promotion to the cadre of RHJS, and their names were approved by the Full Court, their earlier adverse APARs stand washed off. According to them, even if their promotions to the posts of Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates does not wash their adverse entries recorded in their APARs for the year 1985, their adhoc promotions to the cadre of RHJS washes off their adverse entries recorded in the APARs for the year 1985. In support of this submission, my attention has been drawn to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Regional Manager V. Pawan Kumar (2), wherein it has been observed, in para 16 of the Judgment as under :— "There were some old adverse entries also against the respondent. But, they must be deemed to have been washed off, by orders of his promotion, on an adhoc or officiating basis, by an order of 7.03.1992, which had been approved by the Deputy Transport Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh on 18.03.1992, as required by the Rules." (21) My attention was also drawn to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Amar Kant V. State of Bihar (3), which provides that adverse entries, if they are made in the APARs or any Officer before them, have to the communicated to the employee and his explanation has to be obtained and a decision has to be taken thereon. In the case on hand, adverse entries of the year 1983 and 1984 were not communicated to the petitioners before their promotions as Civil Judges-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates. However, on the basis of their entire record, they were found fit for promotion and consequently, those adverse entries stand washed off because they were not communicated to them prior to their promotions. Even if, they were communicated and any representations made against them were rejected and if the officers have been promoted thereafter then too, those adverse entries stand washed off. The Full Court Resolution dated 23.9.1985 nowhere discloses that these adverse entries were kept out of their purview or consideration when these Officers were found suitable for promotion. Even if, they were communicated and any representations made against them were rejected and if the officers have been promoted thereafter then too, those adverse entries stand washed off. The Full Court Resolution dated 23.9.1985 nowhere discloses that these adverse entries were kept out of their purview or consideration when these Officers were found suitable for promotion. It clearly shows that the entire record was perused and these adverse entries were considered by the Full Court and it found only 40 Officers out of 59 Officers fit for promotion to the posts of Civil Judges-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates and, therefore, so far as the petitioners adverse entries for the year 1983 and 1984 are concerned, they stand washed off. Much stress was laid on the suggestion of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Amarkants case (supra) that before making any adverse remarks in the APARs of any Officer, he should be called and the adverse entries should be recorded in bis presence. This is a mere suggestion. This is not the ratio of the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court and, therefore, I am unable to go to that extent that before recording any adverse entries in the APARs of any Officer by the Reporting Officer of the Reviewing Officer, the concerned Officers should be called and adverse entries should be recorded in his presence. No such rule exists. Moreover, in Union of India V. S.B. Chatterjee (4), a Division Bench of this Court has held that the matter regarding the scope of consideration of a. confidential report is certainly limited one. All that can be seen is, whether it is against any statutory rules or borne out of malice or based on some extraneous consideration, not relevant to the issues involved. This Court certainly cannot act as an appellate court for screening the confidential reports and their correctness. It may be stated here that in this case, no such allegation has been made that these adverse entries have been borne out of the malice or are based on some extraneous consideration, not relevant to the issues involved. (22) Regional Manager V. Pawan Kumars case (supra) came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in Ramkumar Singh V. The State of Raj. & Ors. (22) Regional Manager V. Pawan Kumars case (supra) came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in Ramkumar Singh V. The State of Raj. & Ors. (5), wherein in para 18 of the Judgment it has been observed as under: — "But even if it be assumed that the said promotion was on adhoc basis till regular selection was made by the Committee in accordance with the Rules, the observations of the Supreme Court in Regional Manager V. Pawan Kumar Dubeys case (supra) would be applicable, inasmuch as, in that case the promotion of the respondent had been made on an adhoc or officiating basis and it was held that the adverse entries should be deemed to have been washed off by the aforesaid order of the promotion. Similarly, it can be said that the adverse entry in the Confidential Rolls of the petitioner for the year 1966-67 should be deemed to have been washed off, as a result of the order dated 23.03.1973 promoting the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil)." The Regional Manager V. Pawan Kumars case (supra) and Ramkumarsinghs case (supra) were noticed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Chandmal Mittal V. State of Rajasthan (6), wherein Honble G.S. Singhvi, J. has observed as follows : — "On adhoc promotion, previous adverse record of civil servants stands washed off and cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of his regular promotion." It was contended by Mr. Singhvi and Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that promotions from the posts of Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judges- cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrates to the RHJS cadre i.e. to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and, therefore, this decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. (23) My attention was next drawn to a decision of this Court in O.P. Jain V. The Raj. High Court at Jodhpur (7), wherein it has been held that the purpose of writing ACRs/APARs is to keep the record of annual assessment of the Govt. servant and reasonable system or procedure must be observed in doing so. These remarks are general in character and can be treated as guide-lines, but they have little application to the facts of the present case. servant and reasonable system or procedure must be observed in doing so. These remarks are general in character and can be treated as guide-lines, but they have little application to the facts of the present case. (24) As stated above, in this case, against the adverse entries, petitioner Mahesh Singh submitted his representation and that representation has been rejected and petitioner Narainlal did not make any representation and, therefore, these adverse entries have become final. In this case, it has not been alleged by the petitioners that these adverse entries are based on any other material. or they are based on extraneous considerations or have been recorded against them out of malice. Unless this is shown, this Court cannot go into the reasonableness of the remarks that have been recorded against the petitioners. This Court can only consider whether these remarks, if at all they exist, stand washed-off or not? (25) It is true that in this case, promotion of the petitioners to RHJS cadre was on adhoc basis, although petitioner Mahesh Singhs case for promotion was probably considered against regular vacancy because in his case, it was ordered that he should be promoted on officiating basis and not for a temporary period of six months. Be that as it may, when promotion orders were issued, definitely he was promoted on urgent temporary adhoc basis. (26) The word Temporary" as per Shorter Oxfords English Dictionary, Volume-II (Third Edition) means lasting for a limited time; existing or Valid for a time; transient, made to supply a passing need. As per Webster Third New International Dictionary and Seven Language Dictionary, the word temporary means lasting for a time only; existing or continuing for a limited time; Impermanent; Transitory. (27) In Venkataramaiyas Law Lexicon with Legal Maxims (Second Edition), the word Temporary has been defined as under: — "Temporary. - It was held that the true opposite of temporary was not permanent but indefinite or unlimited. The ordinary meaning of temporary purposes is, casual purposes as distinguished from the case of a person who is there in the pursuance of his regular habits of life." (28) In Prems Judicial Dictionary (Vol. 2) (1992 Edition), under the head Temporary posts, it has been stated that a temporary Govt. The ordinary meaning of temporary purposes is, casual purposes as distinguished from the case of a person who is there in the pursuance of his regular habits of life." (28) In Prems Judicial Dictionary (Vol. 2) (1992 Edition), under the head Temporary posts, it has been stated that a temporary Govt. servant knows that he has been temporarily appointed and can have no grievance if he is removed at short notice and without cause being assigned to him. (29) R.22 of the Rules deals with temporary or officiating appointments. It says that on the occurrence of temporary or permanent vacancies, the Court shall recommend to the Governor the names of the candidates from amongst the persons who are eligible for appointment to the service by promotion under clause (i) of r.8 for temporary or officiating appointment. Thus, for a temporary appointment, only eligibility has to be considered and that eligibility has been provided in R.11 of the Rules, which says that no member of RJS shall be eligible for promotion to the service unless he has served for seven years in that service. Thus, the only condition for promotion is that one should have served 7 years in RJS and then alone, he can be considered for promotion, to RHJS cadre. The criteria for selection has been provided in R. 12 of the Rules, which provides that for the purpose of recruitment to the service by promotion, under clause (i) of R. 8, the selection shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the members of the RJS who are eligible for such promotion under r. 11. Thus, the criteria for selection to RHJS cadre is by promotion from amongst RJS Officers on seniority-cum-merit basis. The term Service has been defined in r. 3(h) to mean the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and the term member of the Service has been defined in r. 3(0 of the Rules to mean a person appointed in a substantive capacity to a post in the Service. The posts in the Service have been prescribed in the Schedule and as per r. 3 (g), Schedule means the Schedule to these Rules. Thus, recruitment to the service can be made by promotion from amongst the members of the RJS on the basis of the fulfilment of the eligibility criteria and on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The posts in the Service have been prescribed in the Schedule and as per r. 3 (g), Schedule means the Schedule to these Rules. Thus, recruitment to the service can be made by promotion from amongst the members of the RJS on the basis of the fulfilment of the eligibility criteria and on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Whether that criteria will be applicable to adhoc promotions or not is a question which needs scrutiny and I will not dwell on this point at this stage because this points has not been specifically raised before me and, therefore, it is left open to be decided. Whether r. 12 of the Rules relates to the selections which are made for permanent regular posts or it relates to the selections which are made for purely temporary posts or adhoc temporary posts. Be that as it may, it was contended that once the petitioners have been selected by the Full Court for recruitment to the Service, their cases should not have been reconsidered by the Full Court in its next meeting. If the promotion is totally on urgent temporary basis or on adhoc basis i.e. it is for a limited period then certainly the case of such a person can be re-considered by the Full Court, when it makes a regular selection. A person who has been selected on totally urgent temporary basis has no right to continue on that post and can be reverted back to his original post, if the temporary exigency for which he was promoted does not exist. R. 13(3) clearly provides that at the time when a fresh list has to be drawn up, the cases of all the eligible officers shall again be considered by the Court on merits. Thus, it is clear that under R. 13(3), reconsideration is possible. Sub-r.(l) of r.13 is general in character and it lays down that after a decision is taken by the Court as to the number of persons to be recruited by promotion, the selection shall be made by the Court from amongst the members of Rajasthan Judicial Service who satisfy the criterion laid down in r. 12. Sub-r.(l) of r.13 is general in character and it lays down that after a decision is taken by the Court as to the number of persons to be recruited by promotion, the selection shall be made by the Court from amongst the members of Rajasthan Judicial Service who satisfy the criterion laid down in r. 12. Sub-r. (2) of r. 13 provides that a list of the selected Officers shall be made in the order, the Court may determine; and the names of the officers shall be recommended for appointment to the service in the order given in that list having regard to the provisions of r. 9. Rule9 lays down that appointment of persons to the service shall be made by the Governor on the recommendation of the Court made from time to time provided that the number of persons appointed to the Service by direct recruitment shall at no time exceed one third of the total strength of the service and subject to the provisions of aforesaid sub-r.(l) of r. 9, after every three persons appointed by promotion, the fourth person shall, as far as possible, be appointed by direct recruitment. If a suitable person is not available for appointment by direct recruitment, the post may be filled by promotion from amongst the members of the RJS. Thus, it is clear that appointments to the service can be made only of the persons who become members of the Service by their appointment and that is a regular selection because that selection is against a post which is provided in the Schedule. Thus, selections which are made as regards the posts which do not form part of the Schedule can be termed as totally on urgent temporary basis. It is true that a substantive appointment can be made even against a temporary vacancy as has been held by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Baleshwar Dass V. State of U.P. (8). That was a case, where clause (b) of r. 3 defined members of the service mean a Govt. servant appointed on substantive capacity. Their lordships have held that substantive appointment can be made even against a temporary vacancy. That was a case, where clause (b) of r. 3 defined members of the service mean a Govt. servant appointed on substantive capacity. Their lordships have held that substantive appointment can be made even against a temporary vacancy. (30) In a recent decision, their lordships of the Supreme Court have held in O.P. Garg V. State of U.P. (9) that appointments under r. 22 can be made to a permanent post as well as to a temporary post. So long as the temporary post has an independent existence and is a part of the cadre strength the appointment against the said post has to be treated as substantive appointment. (31) In this case, no effect has been made to show whether promotion of Shri Narainlal was against a cadre post or not? From the Full Court proceedings dated 9.11.1990, we can infer that promotion of Shri Mahesh Singh was against a regular post because he was ordered to be promoted against a substantive post but petitioner Narain Lal was ordered to be promoted on urgent temporary basis. Now, they have been ordered to be demoted only because their past 7 years record was not clean. I have already held that the adverse entries recorded against the petitioners in the year 1985 stand washed-off because of their temporary promotion to the RHJS cadre. Moreover, the Resolution to consider their past 7 years service record was taken by the Full Court in its meeting held on 19.12.1991 whereas they were approved for promotion in the Full Court meeting held on 9.11.1990 and, therefore, this resolution can only be prospective in application and cannot be applied retrospectively because the vacancies which existed prior to 19.12.1991 will have to be filled in on the basis of consideration of all eligible candidates past 5 years service record and not on the basis of their past 7 years service record as claimed by the respondents. Such an administrative resolution can only be prospective in operation and it cannot be retrospective. Their demotion has been ordered only on the ground of their adverse entries recorded in the year 1985. Firstly those adverse entries stand washed off and secondly, the rule relation to consideration of past 7 years record taken by the Full Court can only be applied prospectively. Their demotion has been ordered only on the ground of their adverse entries recorded in the year 1985. Firstly those adverse entries stand washed off and secondly, the rule relation to consideration of past 7 years record taken by the Full Court can only be applied prospectively. These two petitioners could not have been ordered to be reverted back to the posts of Civil Judges-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates on the basis of the report of the Committee, so appointed by the Full Court because they were approved for promotion against the vacancies which existed prior to 19.12.1991. Consequently, the order Annex. 1 dated 8.1.1992 whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be reverted back to the posts of Civil Judges cum Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be sustained and petitioners will be deemed to have been promoted to the Cadre of RHJS w.e.f. the date of their adhoc promotion and as they are continuing in the aforesaid cadre without break. Their seniority will be determined accordingly as per Rules. (32) In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the order Annex. R/1 dated 8.1.1992 reverting the petitioners to the posts of Civil Judges cum Chief Judicial Magistrates is set aside. It is further ordered that the petitioners will continue in the cadre of RHJS from the date they were promoted temporarily in view of the Full Courts Resolution dated 9.11.1990 and then seniority in RHJS cadre will be determined as per Rules. (33) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of these writ petitions.