JUDGMENT 1. - All the three writ petitions will be disposed of by this common order as the facts of these writ petitions are more or less similar and for brevity the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 939/1985 are mentioned in this order. 2. These writ petitions are filed under Article 14, 16, 226 of the Constitution of India and in the matter of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Act and Bye-laws made thereunder and also in the matter of Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 (Act IV of 1970) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner who was appointed in the Engineering Subordinate (Civil) Service by the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board by order dated 26.11.74 and thereafter the petitioner was confirmed as Junior Engineer in terms of order dated 14th October, 1980, subsequently a notional seniority-list dated 30th September, 1982 in respect of Junior Engineers was drawn up by the respondents and the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 4 of the said seniority-list vide Ex.3. The next higher post in the channel of promotion is that of Assistant Engineer. Unfortunately the Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Board (for short 'the Board') had not considered the cases of promotion of its own employees and instead of persons were brought on deputation from other departments which has resulted in substantial loss to the petitioners who are the existing employees of the Board. 3. The petitioners have strongly protested against this practice of calling officers on deputation from different departments particularly when the candidates within the department are readily available for the benefits to which they may be entitled for getting promotions as and when they fall due in order to seniority. This practice of calling officers on deputation from different departments other than the Board has been going on in the past notwithstanding the protest of State Agriculture Marketing Board Engineers Association (for short 'the Engineers Association'). 4. That since the petitioner was eligible to be appointed as Assistant Engineer by promotion having acquired 10 years of practical experience to his credit, which fact was not taken into consideration by the respondents who have been following the practice and taking candidates on deputation from outside i.e. from other departments by ignoring the interest of the in-service candidates. 4. That since the petitioner was eligible to be appointed as Assistant Engineer by promotion having acquired 10 years of practical experience to his credit, which fact was not taken into consideration by the respondents who have been following the practice and taking candidates on deputation from outside i.e. from other departments by ignoring the interest of the in-service candidates. By way of anology the petitioners have cited the instances of atleast 18 candidates in respect of the officers who were taken on deputation from other departments, which are mentioned hereinbelow:- S.No. Name Date of Joining Date of Expiry of deputation 1 Shri S.L. Sehgal 23.4.83 22.4.85 2 Shri M.D. Hadda 10/03/83 30.4.85 3 Shri S.L. Sahlot 26.8.83 25.8.84 4 Shri S.K. Mangal 16.3.83 30.4.85 5 Shri S.P. Singh 29.7.83 30.4.85 6 Shri P.K. Agarwal 10/10/83 30.4.85 7 Shri S.S. Mahipal 07/11/83 06/11/84 8 Shri M.D. Gupta 07/02/84 06/02/85 9 Shri S. M. Vyas 08/11/83 07/11/84 10 Shri D.K. Garg 07/07/84 06/07/85 11 Shri Ladli Sharan Mathur 30.6.84 29.6.85 12 Shri Jilaluddin Ahmed 17.8.84 13 Shri R.P. Gupta 17.8.84 14 Shri R.K. Bohra 03/11/84 15 Shri R.K. Gupta 03/11/84 16 Shri R.S. Raghav 03/11/84 17 Shri P.K. Arora 03/11/84 18 Shri Jalotia Feb. 85 5. That with regard to the services in the Board, the service conditions of the employees are regulated by the service Regulations and the Bye-laws of 1977, framed by the Board. Under clause (f) of Section 22(L) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1961 in respect of matters of appointments and promotions etc., the service conditions of the employees are governed by the said by-laws. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also referred to a Cabinet Memo dated 22nd October, 1983 (Annex. 6), according to which keeping in view the fact of stagnation on all cadres of engineers such as Assistant Engineers, Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers etc., the Public Works Department of the State Government had issued a memo, whereby the senior-most Assistant Engineer in service of the PWD, who has been continuing on the said post for the last 17 years and in PHED for the last 15 years were not given the further promotional benefits which would have normally accrued to the said official by virtue of continuity in service. In this regard it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said Cabinet Memo has been given effect ever since its inception and, therefore, it has virtually become a 'dead letter'. A reference has also been made to the relevant provisions of the Bye-laws and the Rules governing the conditions of service of the Public Works Department employees. The relevant provisions in this regard which have been referred are Section 34-A which is reproduced as under:- "11. Appointment and salaries of servants of the market committee-(1) The market committee may employ in the prescribed manner such officers and servants as may be necessary for the management of the market and may pay such officers and servants such salaries as the market committee thinks fit. (2) The market committee shall in the case of any officer or servant of Government whom it employs, pay such pension contribution, gratuity or leave allowance as may be required by the conditions of his service under the State Government for the time being in force. (3) The market committee may also, in the case of any of its officers and servants, provide for the payment to them of such leave allowance pensions or gratuities as it deems proper and may contribute to any provident fund which may be established for the benefit of such officers and servants. (4) The powers conferred by this section on the market committee shall be exercised subject to any rules which may be made in this behalf by the State Government." "34A.-Directions by the State Government:- (1) The State Government may give to the Board of the Market Committees general instructions to be followed by the Board or such Committees for carrying out the purposes of the Act and such instructions may include direction relating to the purposes for which, and the manner in which the market committee fund of the Marketing Development Fund shall be spent and the manner in which the surpluses with the Board or the Committees shall be kept. (2) In the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties under this Act, the Board or the market committee shall not depart from any general instructions issued under sub-section (1) accept (sic except) with the previous permission of the State Government." 6. (2) In the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties under this Act, the Board or the market committee shall not depart from any general instructions issued under sub-section (1) accept (sic except) with the previous permission of the State Government." 6. Looking to the aims and objects of the Act, 1961, it is a beneficial legislation since the said enactment was made with a view to provide for the better Regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and establishment of market for agricultural produce in the Rajasthan. The aim of the said Act is to improve the standard market and to provide fair trading for market and to safeguard the health and sanitation of the users of the market. It will be seen from the above that the object of the Act is in the public interest viz., supervision and control of transaction of produce by the traders from agriculturists in order to prevent exploitation of the latter by the former. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since there has been continuous stagnation in the service conditions of the employees they have been repeatedly making representations in the past against importing of engineers on deputation from other Government Department of the State. The said representations were made during the period 17th December, 1980 to 4th May, 1985 to different administrative heads of the respective departments of the State Government but all to no avail. It has been further contended by the petitioners that notwithstanding the above representations and the different cabinet memos issued from time to time i.e. 22nd October, 1985 and 1.1.1985 apart from the report of the Sub-committee in this regard, no exercise was undertaken at any level by the respondents to collect the factual dates with regard to service conditions of the employees and that the said cabinet memos were drawn-up without taking into consideration the aims and objects of the Act of 1961 which stand frustrated. It has been further contended by the petitioner that the policy of bringing officers on deputation from different departments has been consistently in vogue in the past as a consequence of which the petitioners have been deprived of the regular promotional benefits which would have legitimately accrued to them by virtue of their continuity in service. It has been further contended by the petitioner that the policy of bringing officers on deputation from different departments has been consistently in vogue in the past as a consequence of which the petitioners have been deprived of the regular promotional benefits which would have legitimately accrued to them by virtue of their continuity in service. There has been no meeting of Selection Committee and no Departmental Promotion Committees have been convened resulting in denial of promotional benefits and consequent stagnation in service. It was in this context that the present writ petitions were filed with a view to direct the respondents to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee for various posts on yearly basis against the vacancies which had become available from time to time with a view to accord promotions to the officers who are found suitable for such promotions from due dates with all consequential benefits. The petitioners have further sought a direction to the effect that the Board may be restrained from appointing engineers from Government Departments on deputation and instead of that benefit should be extended to the in-service candidates. For proper appreciation of the facts and contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it shall be pertinent to refer to bye-laws formulated by the Board. A reference may be made to Bye-law No. 4 which reads as under:- "(4) Selection for promotion from lowest post or category of posts in the Service to the next higher post of category of posts the Service shall be made solely on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the persons who have put in at least five years service unless a different period is prescribed in these bye-laws 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 the persons with the requisite period of Service of five years, than the prescribed period of Service, if they fulfill the qualification for promotion prescribed in these by laws and are found otherwise suitable for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit." 7. Provided that in the event of non-availability of the persons with the requisite period of Service of five years, than the prescribed period of Service, if they fulfill the qualification for promotion prescribed in these by laws and are found otherwise suitable for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit." 7. A bare perusal of the said bye-law makes it clear that it is only in the event of non-availability of the qualified persons from the Department within the requisite period of service of 5 years, the Screening Committee may consider the persons having less than the prescribed length of service by taking candidates on deputation from outside subject to their fulfilling the requirements with regard to the qualification for promotion as prescribed in the bye-laws on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. In other words the interest of in-service candidates has to be safeguarded by the Department as they are to be considered first in preference of candidates not belonging to the Department. There is a further provision in the bye-law No.9 wherein it is specifically provided that Screening Committee for each year shall consider the case of all senior-most persons who are eligible and qualified for promotion to the class of post concerned as provided under the bye-laws and the said Screening Committee shall prepare a list containing the names of suitable persons equal to the number of existing vacancies and as well as the vacancies anticipated to occur in the next 12 months after the determination of vacancies. There is a statutory duty cast upon the committee to prepare a separate list containing names of suitable persons as equal to the number of vacancies falling due in a particular year. The list so prepared on the basis of merit shall be a arranged by the said committee in order of preference and the list prepared on the basis of seniority-cum-merit shall be arranged in order of seniority keeping in view the category of post from which selection is to be made. There is a further statutory duty cast on the Screening Committee to forward such list to the Appointing authority together with the Annual Confidential Roll and personal file of concerned candidates who have been included in the list including the names of those not selected, if any. There is a further statutory duty cast on the Screening Committee to forward such list to the Appointing authority together with the Annual Confidential Roll and personal file of concerned candidates who have been included in the list including the names of those not selected, if any. It shall also be pertinent to refer to bye-law No. 12 which provides that in case the eligible persons are not available for promotion the post shall be filled in by the persons on deputation from the Government. 8. A bare reading of bye-law 12 makes it explicitly clear that it is only in the event of eligible candidates not found available for promotion i.e. in-service candidates only then the Department shall fill in the vacancies by taking the persons on deputation from outside. A reference was also made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to a letter dated 15th May, 1986 addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Jaipur wherein the respondents have taken the stand that the Government has no objection to send back all civil engineers to their parent departments on expiry of their deputation period and filling up of the resultant vacancies by promotion of all eligible officers of the organisation to the extent specified in the terms communicated to the concerned Secretary of the P.W.D. This evidently shows that the respondents have been earlier following the policy of taking candidates from outside with a view to fill up the posts of the resultant vacancies by taking candidates on deputation from other departments. At the same time the respondents have also taken a positive stand in favour of the petitioners which is clear from the letter dated 2nd August, 1986 addressed to the Secretary of the Board wherein a similar stand has been taken that on the expiry of the deputation period of the concerned employees the said candidates shall be sent back to their respective parent departments. This evidently shows that the respondents have been consistently following the policy of taking candidates on deputation from other departments by ignoring the interest of the in-service candidates. The respondents have further taken the stand the since the petitioners are not members of a registered body or association which has not been recognised by the State Marketing Board, each and every member mentioned in Schedule-A are not entitled for promotional benefits. The respondents have further taken the stand the since the petitioners are not members of a registered body or association which has not been recognised by the State Marketing Board, each and every member mentioned in Schedule-A are not entitled for promotional benefits. They have further stated that the candidates who were eligible for promotion as per the list have since already been promoted to their next higher post in the order of merit and that the respondents are only filling the posts of Assistant Engineers, Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers by way of deputation when eligible persons are not available in the Board. This evidently shows that in the garb of non-availability of in-service candidates, the respondents have been taking candidates from other departments and have been extending the promotional benefits to them. This also operates as an estoppel on the respondents in view of the fact that a reference has been made in their reply to bye-law No. 12 which places an embargo on the Department to take the candidates from outside only in the event of in-service eligible candidates are not available for promotions and only in that event the post shall be filled in by the persons on deputation from other departments. It has been further stated in the reply that the said respondent has no intention to take candidates from outside except on the post of Assistant Engineers, Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers on deputation in view of the bye-laws which permit the respondents to take candidates from outside in the event of non-availability of the suitable candidates as provided in the bye-laws. It is not the case of the respondents that they shall take candidates from there departments by ignoring the interest of the in-service candidates particularly when such candidates are available for promotion on the basis of their eligibility and suitability as provided by bye-laws. A plea has been further taken by the respondents that they are gradually developing the cadre strength and which will take some time to establish in respect of all engineers and, therefore, till such cadre strength is completed they shall go on with the policy of taking candidates on deputation from other departments in accordance with bye-laws. 9. A plea has been further taken by the respondents that they are gradually developing the cadre strength and which will take some time to establish in respect of all engineers and, therefore, till such cadre strength is completed they shall go on with the policy of taking candidates on deputation from other departments in accordance with bye-laws. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Board that for the past couple of years the policy of taking in-service candidates has been consistently followed and that the Board shall not be ignoring the interest of the in-service candidates so as to provide them the promotional benefits and this has so happened atleast in the case of Superintending Engineers and 12 Assistant Engineers (who have since been promoted as Executive Engineers) in the year 1986-87. This clearly reveals that the respondents have since changed their practice giving first preference to the in-service candidates for the purposes of extending promotional benefits subject to their suitability-cum-merit and they shall not be having resort of taking candidates from other departments as done in the past. The respondents have further stated that they shall be strictly adhering to the bye-laws in the matter of exercising powers of appointments and promotions including the filling the posts by way of deputation from other departments in accordance with bye-laws. 10. During the course of hearing reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Board on a Government Circular dated 3rd August, 1992 wherein it is specifically provided that from the year 1977 onwards i.e. from 1978-79 to 1986-87, all promotions to the post of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers were done by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee which was convened for the said purpose. It is further contended that the petitioners have been accorded necessary promotional benefits in pursuance of the Departmental Promotion Committee, as referred to above. 11. It is further contended that the petitioners have been accorded necessary promotional benefits in pursuance of the Departmental Promotion Committee, as referred to above. 11. It will be pertinent to refer to the judgment of this Court in the matter of Rajasthan Thermal Association v.State of Rajasthan, 1990 (1) RLR 199 = 1991 (6) SLR 378 , wherein this Court had partly allowed the writ petitions by giving direction to the Rajasthan Housing Board to appoint junior Site Engineers/Structural Site Engineers/Structural Engineers and Resident Engineers strictly in accordance with the Housing Board Employees (Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion) Regulation, 1976, with a further direction that no engineer or officer should be appointed to these posts on deputation unless the competent authority or the selecting authority records an administrative finding that suitable persons are not available either by direct recruitment or by promotion, as the case may be. This Court had further directed that before the Board takes any person on deputation from outside, it will have to arrive at an administrative decision that suitable candidates are not available either by direct recruitment or by promotion. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the rival contentions and also on the perusal of the documents tendered on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed and that they are entitled to all consequential benefits which may have legitimately accrued to them, which is to be reckoned with respect to the date of their respective promotions when they were found due and eligible for such promotions. The Board is accordingly directed that in future whenever any candidate on deputation is taken from other department of the State Governments, the respondents shall resort to such exercise by ignoring the interest of the in-service candidates, who would otherwise be available and found eligible for such promotional benefits. All the three writ petitions are consequently allowed and disposed of in the light of the directions given above, with no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******