JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the matter of violation of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution read with the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') and Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963, (for short 'the Rules'). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in short, is that the petitioner after obtaining the requisite educational qualifications having passed the High Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer in the year 1969, applied for the post of Sub-Nakedar pursuant to the advertisement of the said post by the Rajasthan Panchayat and Local Self Subordinate Service Commission, Jaipur (for short 'the Commission') in the year 1976. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had applied for the said post of Sub-Nakedar and was called for selection by the Commission and was selected for the said post. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Sub-Nakedar by the Municipal Board, Sujangarh, vide order dated 3rd June, 1977 (Annex-2). 2. Thereafter the petitioner sought his transfer from Municipal Board, Sujangarh to Municipal Board Lalsot which request was acceded by the Director, Local Bodies, vide Annex-4. Subsequently, the petitioner was again transferred from Municipal Board, Lalsot to Municipal Board, Dausa vide order dated 13th February, 1979. The short question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the denial of promotion to the petitioner who has already completed the requisite length of service of more than 5 years having been appointed on 4.6.77 and was due for promotion as Nakedar in the year 1982 was justified ? The promotion to the next post of Nakedar has been denied to the petitioner ever since without assigning any reason for the same. Shri Kasliwal learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was absolutely no justification for with-holding the promotion of the petitioner particularly in view of the fact that the name of the petitioner had earlier figured in the earlier seniority list dated 21.1.86 which was subsequently withdrawn and has now been shown at serial No. 1 in the seniority-list dated 23.3.94 (Annex-17) enclosed with the petitioner's application for direction. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena who was junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Nakedar on 28.2.86, notwithstanding the fact that the said candidate was junior to the petitioner since he was appointed with effect 7.12.77 whereas the petitioner was appointed earlier on 4.6.77. It has been further contended by Shri Kasliwal that the petitioner made several representations which are dated 29.9.85 (annex. 8), 7.12.85 (Annex-9) and 30.12.85 (Annex-11) but all to no effect with the result that the petitioner has received no communication from the respondents as to what were the reasons for depriving the petitioner of promotion to the post of Nakedar. 3. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner was confirmed on the substantive post of Sub-Nakedar and the seniority-list was tentatively issued on 21.1.86 containing the name of the petitioner by the Municipal Board but the said seniority list which was drawn on 29.1.86 vide Annex-13, was cancelled till further inquiry was issued. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondents clearly reveals that apparently no reason was assigned for not drawing up the fresh seniority list after the withdrawal of earlier one and for not implementing the same as referred to above. Thereafter it has, belatedly, been issued now on 23.3.94 where the name of the petitioner has been placed at serial No. 1 in the order of merit. The Municipal Board, Lalsot had already recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion as Nakedar way back in 1986 but since the name of the petitioner was not included in the seniority list, he was denied the promotion. 4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the perusal of the reply filed by the respondents, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been unlawfully denied promotion to the next post of Nakedar from the substantive post of Sub-Nakedar on which the petitioner is presently working with the Municipal Board at Lalsot. This attitude of respondents is not only against the settled proposition of law that no person should be denied promotion if due to him in accordance with rules but the said attitude of the respondents is also violative of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play since it would create stagnation in service by depriving the promotional benefits to the candidates who are otherwise eligible for the said promotion. Reference may be made in this context to Rule 24 and 25 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963. Rule 24 deals with criteria of selection and Rule 25 provides procedure for selection which are being quoted hereinbelow : "24. Criteria of selection - (1) For purposes of recruitment by promotion to the service, a selection strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-merit shall be made amongst members of the service eligible for promotion as provided in the Schedule. (2) In selecting the candidates for promotion regard shall be had to their:- (i) technical qualification, knowledge and experience; (ii) tact, energy and intelligence; (iii) integrity; and (iv) previous record of service; 25. Procedure for selection-(1) Whenever vacancies in various grades and categories of service are to be filled by promotion, the Board concerned shall submit their recommendation to the Promotion Board alongwith the annual confidential report and other service records of the persons recommended for promotion. The Promotion Board after taking into consideration the recommendation as well as other service record shall communicate its decision to the Board concerned. (2) On receipt of the decision of the Promotion Board, orders for promotion shall be issued by the appointing authority." 5. In my considered opinion there has been flagrant disregard to both the above quoted rules by the respondents since neither the criteria of selection was adopted nor the name of the petitioner was recommended or placed for consideration before the Selection Board alongwith other candidates who were otherwise due for promotion to the post of Nakedar in accordance with rules. 6. 6. Consequently the writ petition is allowed with costs and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Nakedar in Municipal Board, Lalsot in preference to all other Sub-Nakedars since the name of the petitioner already figures at serial No.1 in the seniority list dated 23.3.94, as referred to above, and it is further directed that the petitioner shall be given all consequential benefits which were otherwise due to the petitioner with effect from 28.2.86, subject to the petitioner being found suitable, as provided under the rules. The said exercise be carried out by the respondents within a period of 4 weeks from today.Petition allowed with costs. *******