JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal u/s. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order of learned single Judge dated 19-9-89 whereby while allowing the writ petition he has directed the appellant to promote the petitioner-respondent No. 1 on the post of Helper I from 17-5-71. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this special appeal briefly stated that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 Ram Narayan was appointed as a Helper II vide order dated 29-1-69 Anx. I for a period of three months and continued as such. The seniority of the Helpers Grade I and Helpers Grade II was determined as it stood on 2-11-69 and in the list the petitioner's name appeared at 15th number. Out of the Seniority List 13 Helpers I Grade II were promoted on ad hoc basis as Helpers Grade I w.e.f. 3-11-69. The Commissioner, Municipal Council vide order dated 21-12-1976 found 13 Helpers to be fit for being absorbed on the post of Helper I depriving Sarava Shri Bhagirath, Jairam Shankersingh and Ramnarayan to the benefit of promotion to the post of Helper Grade I. The Administrator asked for the relaxation in educational qualification which was granted by the Deputy Secretary to the Government vide Anx. 9 dated 20-5-1980 to Bhagirath, Jairam, Shanker Singh and Ramnarayan but promotion was given to the other persons on the post of Helper Grade I ignoring the claim of the petitioner. He was appointed as Helper Gr. I on 19-9-85 vide Anx. 12. Thereafter the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar vide his order dated 11-6-86 Anx. 13 ordered the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Helper I to be considered w.e.f. 1-4-1981. The petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition claiming that he is entitled for promotion to the post of Helper I w.e.f. 17-5-71 when it was given to the persons junior to him on the ground of discrimination. Notice to show cause was : issued to the non-petitioners and in pursuance thereof Mr. N. P. Gupta, advocate appeared oh behalf of respondent No. 3 and filed reply stating that the appointment of Jai Ram is of 2-3-66 and he was appointed as Key-Man on 26-6-68 and subsequently appointed as a Helper Gr. II on 24-11-72. Notice to show cause was : issued to the non-petitioners and in pursuance thereof Mr. N. P. Gupta, advocate appeared oh behalf of respondent No. 3 and filed reply stating that the appointment of Jai Ram is of 2-3-66 and he was appointed as Key-Man on 26-6-68 and subsequently appointed as a Helper Gr. II on 24-11-72. It was also stated that the contention of the petitioner that he should have been promoted as Helper I w.e.f. 17-5-71 cannot be accepted as he has not chosen to implead the affected persons as party and prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. A preliminary objection was also raised that as Lekhram, Jairam and Rad ha Mohan have not been impleaded as parties to the writ petition, it is not maintainable. The petitioner was granted time for doing so. The application for impleading them was allowed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 13-7-89. After hearing both the parties, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition as stated above vide his order dated 19-9-89. Dissatisfied with the order of learned single Judge, the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar has preferred this special appeal. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition when only a show cause notice had been issued by the Court to the respondents. He has submitted in the reply to the show cause notice that the petitioner has come to the Court with unclean hands suppressing numerous material facts as according to the petitioner Jai Ram was appointed on 24-1-72 whereas he is an appointee of 2-3-66. He has also submitted that the petitioner was promoted as soon as the post became available on 1-4-81. 4. Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the learned single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that there is discrimination in as much as out of four persons to whom the Government granted relaxation only the petitioner was not given benefit and thus the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is no doubt true that the State is competent to classify the employees for the purpose of promotion but if there is no nexus in the differentiation made by it between the members of the same cadre or class, it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and this Court can interfere with it in its writ jurisdiction. 7. In the case in hand it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Helper Gr. II on 29-1-69. Out of 17 persons who had been working as Helper Gr. II since 3-11-69,13 persons were promoted to the post of Helper Gr. I and only four persons viz. Bhagirath, Jairam, Shankersingh and Mr. Ramnarayan were left out for which the appellant moved to the Government for relaxation in educational qualification. It may be pertinent to mention here that appellant not only recommended for relaxation of qualification but further recommended for conversion of all posts of Helpers Grade II to that of Helpers Grade I. Accordingly the Government while granting relaxation in qualifications vide Anx. 9 dated 20-5-80 to the petitioner along with three others and further upgraded the four posts of Helpers Grade II to Helpers Gr. I. However out of these four persons to whom relaxation was granted three persons were given promotion vide Anx. 10 dated 1-8-80 with retrospective effect whereas the petitioner was not given that promotion. There was no justification for not granting promotion to the petitioner who was similarly situated. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned single Judge has erred in directing the appellant to give promotion to the petitioner from the date other similarly situated persons have been promoted i.e. w.e.f. 17-5-71. The argument of Mr. Gupta that Jai Ram was not junior to the petitioner is beside the point. When four posts of helpers Gr. II were upgraded by abolishing the posts of helpers Gr. II and relaxation was granted as regards qualification there exists no reasons to deprive the petitioner of his right of promotion as helper grade I when post of Helper Grade II stands totally abolished. This amounts to treating equals as unequals. When four posts of helpers Gr. II were upgraded by abolishing the posts of helpers Gr. II and relaxation was granted as regards qualification there exists no reasons to deprive the petitioner of his right of promotion as helper grade I when post of Helper Grade II stands totally abolished. This amounts to treating equals as unequals. Moreover no document has been produced to show that Jai Ram is senior to the petitioner in spite of giving time to the appellants to do so vide order dated 22-1-93. In view of this, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as helper grade I w.e.f. 17-5-71. So far as the contention of Mr. Gupta that he could not file a detailed para-wise reply because only show cause notice was issued and the Court chose to hear the matter finally, suffice it to say that the learned single Judge has passed the order after hearing him and at that time he could have made a request in this regard but in the absence of any such request having been made, now it is not open to him to contend that he was not given proper opportunity particularly when a reply to show cause notice has been filed by the non-petitioner appellant. As regards the contention that the petitioner has not come with clean hands, no material has been brought on record in support of this contention either with the reply filed in the writ petition or in the special appeal so as to infer that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing of facts and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted. Under these circumstances, the learned single Judge has rightly ! held that the action of the respondents is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in our opinion there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Retrospective promotion w.e.f. 17-5-71 be accorded to respondent Ramnarain within a period of six months and he be paid all arrears of the consequential benefits within a period of four months from today. 8. In the result, this special appeal has no force, so it is hereby dismissed with no orders to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******