JUDGMENT 1. - These two connected Special Appeals under section 18 of the Raj. High Court Ordinance, 1949, have been directed against the judgment dated 7th July, 1993, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby he allowed the Writ Petition Nos. 208/1992 & 258/1992, filed by petitioner-respondents separately. 2. The brief relevant facts of these appeals are that the petitioner-respondents after due selection joined Rajasthan Judicial Service in the year 1973, and were posted as Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrates. 3. In the years 1983 and 1984, both the petitioner-respondents received adverse remarks in their Annual Confidential Reports (for short the ACRs). These adverse remarks were communicated to them in the year 1986. The petitioner- respondent Mahesh Singh submitted representations against the adverse remarks in his ACRs for the years 1983 and 1984, but the same were rejected. The petitioner-respondent Narain Lal did not file any representation against the adverse remarks in his ACRs for the years 1983 and 1984. Both the petitioner-respondents again received adverse-remarks in their ACRs for the year 1985. Petitioner-respondent Mahesh Singh submitted his representation but the same was rejected. 4. The Government vide its order dated 17th Sept. 1985, promoted both the petitioner-respondents on the post of Civil Judge-cum-Additional-Chief Judicial Magistrate on ad hoc basis. In the year 1988, both were posted as Civil Judge-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate. On the recommendations of the appellant, the Government vide its order dated 27th Feburary, 1991, passed under R. 22 of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 (for short the R.H.J.S. Rules), promoted both the petitioner-respondents on the post of A.D.J. temporarily on ad hoc basis for a period of six months. It was mentioned in the order that the petitioner-respondents would not get any right on account of this promotion. Vide order dated 6-3-1991, Shri Mahesh Singh was posted as A.D.J. Jaisalmer, while Shri Narain Lal was posted as A.D.J. Nohar. Vide order dated 28th November, 1991, their term was further extended for a period of three months. It was mentioned in the order that the petitioner-respondents would not get any right on account of this promotion. Vide order dated 6-3-1991, Shri Mahesh Singh was posted as A.D.J. Jaisalmer, while Shri Narain Lal was posted as A.D.J. Nohar. Vide order dated 28th November, 1991, their term was further extended for a period of three months. When the petitioner-respondents came to know that the Full Court in its meeting held on 19th December, 1991, decided to revert them from R.H.J.S. to R.J.S. cadre, on the basis of report of a Committee, which had taken into consideration their ACRS for the last seven years including the ACRs for the years 1984 and 1985, they filed separate writ petitions, praying that the appellant be restrained from reverting them from the cadre of R.H.J.S. to the cadre of R.J.S. and in case if any order of reversion is passed, the same be set aside. They based their writ petitions on two grounds. Firstly, the adverse entries in the ACRs for the years 1984 and 1985 were washed off on account of their promotions as mentioned above and secondly at the time of promoting the petitioners on the post of A.D.J., the rules was for considering the past five years service record of R.J.S. officers. The petitioner- respondents were promoted against the vacancies which existed at the relevant time. The rule for considering past seven years service record was made for the first time on 9th December, 1991. The rule is prospective and not retrospective. 5. The appellant filed detailed replies to the writ petitions and contested the same. The petitioner-respondents also filed their rejoinders of the replies submitted by the appellant. 6. The rule for considering past seven years service record was made for the first time on 9th December, 1991. The rule is prospective and not retrospective. 5. The appellant filed detailed replies to the writ petitions and contested the same. The petitioner-respondents also filed their rejoinders of the replies submitted by the appellant. 6. The learned single Judge vide his common judgment dated 7th July, 1993, passed in both the writ petitions held that the adverse remarks in the ACRs for the years 1983 and 1984 were washed off on account of promotions given to the petitioner-respondents in the year 1985, on the post of Civil Judge-cum-A.C.J.M. He was further of the view that the adverse remarks given to the petitioner-respondents in the year 1985 were washed off on account of their promotion on the post of A.D.J. He was further of the view that the resolution to consider the past seven years service record was adopted by the Full Court in its meeting held on 19th December, 1991, whereas the petitioner-respondents were approved for promotion in the Full Court's meeting held on 9th November, 1990. Resolution for considering the past seven years service record was prospective and not retrospective. The petitioner-respondents were promoted on the vacancies which existed prior to 19th December, 1991, and at that time the promotions were given after considering the past five years service record and not on the basis of past seven years record. Under these circumstances, he allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order dated 8-1-1992, reverting the petitioner-respondents to the post of Civil Judge-cum- A.C.J.M. He further directed the appellant to continue the petitioner-respondents in the cadre of RHJS from the date they were promoted temporarily in view of the Full Court's resolution dated 9-11-1990. 7. Against this order, the Rajasthan High Court filed aforesaid two separate appeals. As common questions of fact and law are involved in both these appeals, as such, they are decided by a common judgment. 8. We have heard Mr. R.P. Dave for the appellant, Mr. M. R. Singhvi and Mr. S. N. Sharma for the petitioner-respondents. 9. Mr. 7. Against this order, the Rajasthan High Court filed aforesaid two separate appeals. As common questions of fact and law are involved in both these appeals, as such, they are decided by a common judgment. 8. We have heard Mr. R.P. Dave for the appellant, Mr. M. R. Singhvi and Mr. S. N. Sharma for the petitioner-respondents. 9. Mr. Dave, counsel for the appellant argued that adverse entries for the years 1983 and 1984 were conveyed to the petitioner-respondents only in the year 1986 and as such they were not considered at the time when the petitioner- respondents were promoted on the post of Civil Judge-cum-A.C.J.M. The representations against these adverse remarks submitted by Mahesh Singh were rejected. Mr. Narain Lal did not file any representation and as such these adverse remarks in the ACRS of the petitioner-respondents for the year 1983 and 1984 became final. These adverse entries were regarding integrity of the petitioner- respondents and as such it cannot be said that these adverse entries were washed off on account of promotions given to the petitioner-respondents on the post of Civil Judge-Cum-A.C.J.M. and later on their posting on the post of Civil Judge-cum-C.J.M. He further contended that the adverse entries given to both the petitioner-respondents in the year 1985, could not he washed off on account of their ad hoc/temporary promotion on the post of A.D.J. vide order dated 27-2-1991. He argued that this promotion was only for a period of six months. Furthermore, it was specifically mentioned in this order that the promote would not get any right on account of said promotion. Later on, the period was extended for a period of three months only. He argued that on 19-12-1991, the Full Court considered the service record of all the eligible R.J.S. Officers for promotion to R.H.J.S. cadre, including the petitioner-respondents and as the service record of petitioner-respondents for the past seven years was not satisfactory. their period was not extended. He further argued that rule for considering past seven years service record was not prospective but was retrospective. In support of his arguments, Mr. Dave placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 118 : (1969 Lab IC 1(H)) B.S. Vadera v. Union of India . their period was not extended. He further argued that rule for considering past seven years service record was not prospective but was retrospective. In support of his arguments, Mr. Dave placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 118 : (1969 Lab IC 1(H)) B.S. Vadera v. Union of India . He prayed that the appeals be allowed and the judgment passed by learned single Judge be set aside and the writ petition filed by petitioner- respondents be dismissed. 10. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner-respondents argued that on account of ad hoc promotions as mentioned above, their adverse entries in the ACR for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985, stood washed off. They argued that this principle was laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment reported in AIR 1976 SC 1766 : 1976 Lab IC 1146) Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dube, which was followed by this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Singh reported in 1986 (2) Judicial Surveyor, 196. They further argued that the Full Court in its meeting held on 9-11-1990 found that the petitioner-respondents were suitable for promotion but the order promoting them on the post of ADJ was issued on 27-2-1992. They argued that at the relevant time the rule was for consideration of last three to five years service record and on that basis several officers as mentioned in Para No. 31 of the Writ Petition No. 208/1992 were promoted on the post of A.D.J. The petitioner-respondents could not be discriminated by the appellant by applying the rule of considering past seven years service record. This rule was not in existence when they were given promotion. The petitioner-respondents were promoted against the vacancies which existed on or before 15-2-1991 and as such the law which was prevailing at that time have to be applied. The rule for considering past seven years service record was made on 19-12-1991. This rule is only prospective and not retrospective. In support of this argument, they placed reliance on judgments of Hon. Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 852 Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and AIR 1988 SC 2068 P.G. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh . They argued that the learned single Judge has also considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and allowed the writ petitions. They argued that the learned single Judge has also considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and allowed the writ petitions. There is no infirmity in the order/ judgment passed by learned single Judge. They prayed that appeals be dismissed with costs. 11. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners were given adverse remarks in their ACRs for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985. The representations submitted by Mahesh Singh were rejected. No representation was submitted by Narain Lal. The petitioner-respondents were promoted on the post of Civil Judge-cum-A.C.J.M. in the year 1985 and later on they were posted as Civil- Judge-cum-C.J.M. in the year 1988. Vide order dated 27-12-1991, they were promoted under Rule 22 of the R.H.J.S. Rules, 1969 on the post of A.D.J. for a period of six months. It was made clear in the order that they would not get any right on account of this promotion. This period was further extended for it period of three months. The petitioner-respondents were posted on the post of A.D.J. From going through the original record of the appellant, we came to know that the Full Court in its meeting held on 9-11-90, resolved to promote the petitioner-respondents on the post of A.D.J. as both of them were found fit but later on the resolution for promoting the petitioner-respondents on the aforesaid post was kept in abeyance. The inspecting judges were requested to send ACRS of the petitioner-respondents for the years 1988 and 1989. Vide resolution dated 15-2-1991, of the Full Court, both the petitioner - respondents were approved for promotion for a period of six months on temporary/urgent/ad hoc basis with a rider that the promotion would not confer any right upon them. Later on, order dated 27-2-1991, was issued by the Government promoting the petitioner-respondents on the post of A.D.J. for a it period of six months. It is not denied that at that time the rule was for considering past five years service record of eligible R.J.S. officer for promotion in the cadre of RHJS. It is not the case of the appellant that the service record of the petitioner-respondents for the period from 1986 to 1990 (five years) was had or that they had any adverse entries during this period. The petitioner- respondents were promoted against the vacancies which existed at the relevant time. It is not the case of the appellant that the service record of the petitioner-respondents for the period from 1986 to 1990 (five years) was had or that they had any adverse entries during this period. The petitioner- respondents were promoted against the vacancies which existed at the relevant time. It is also not denied by the appellant that at the relevant time and prior to that the appellant promoted several R.J.S. Officers in the the cadre of RHJS after considering their past five years service record as mentioned in para No. 31 of the Writ Petition No. 208/1992. 12. In AIR 1983 SC 852 (supra), the Apex Court held as under:- "But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not slightest doubt that the post which fell vacant prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the new Rules." 13. In AIR 1988 SC 2068 (supra) , the Apex Court held as under:- "We hold that amendment made on 28-4-1980, does not apply to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of the amendment." 14. In 1983 (3) SCC 284 , State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sreenivasa Rao , the Apex Court held as under : "Vacancies in the promotional posts occurring prior to the amendment have to be filled up in accordance with the unamended rules." 15. In the present case also the petitioner- respondents were promoted vide order dated 27-2-1991, in accordance with the law which was prevalent at that time. They were promoted against the vacancies which existed at that time. They were reverted only on the ground that their past seven years service record was not satisfactory. In our view, the appellant was not justified in reverting the petitioner-respondents on the ground that their past seven years service record was not satisfactory. The appellant cannot discriminate the petitioner-respondents from the persons who were promoted after considering their past five years services record. The rule for considering past seven years service record is prospective and not retrospective. The judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 118 (supra) is totally distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the case. 16. The appellant cannot discriminate the petitioner-respondents from the persons who were promoted after considering their past five years services record. The rule for considering past seven years service record is prospective and not retrospective. The judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 118 (supra) is totally distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the case. 16. As we are going to reject the appeals only on the second ground, there is no necessity to decide the question regarding washing off adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner respondents on account of their promotions as mentioned above. 17. Consequently the appellants are dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeals dismissed. *******