JUDGMENT 1. - This case was heard on July 5, 1994, but no Government Advocate turned up to contest the writ petition. Even today, nobody is present on behalf of the State to oppose the writ petition. This case is being disposed of in the absence of any assistance from the Government side, as usual. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to the respondents, for promoting him to the post of Land Revenue Inspector, in accordance with the Rules with retrospective effect, i.e., from 1984, the date from which he became entitled for promotion. 3. The petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Patwari by the competent authority on November 30,1964. After his appointment, he passed the necessary examination in the month of April, 1965. He was confirmed in 1975. 4. The petitioner's case is governed by the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 framed under sub-section (2) of Section 261 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 5. The said Rules have been amended vide Notification No. F. 6(101)Rev/Gr.4/81/62 Jaipur, dated 15th December, 1982. The relevant amendment runs as follows:- "The following proviso shall be added, to rule 171 (ii) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the said rules, namely:- "Provided that the Collector, with the previous approval of the Director of Land Records, may also appoint a Patwari, who has rendered meritorious services or has shown exemplary courage and devotion to duty for the cause of the nation, on the post of Inspector, Land Records, if he fulfils the conditions laid down in rule 300 of these rules; Provided further that the Director of Land Records may send such Inspector Land Records mentioned in the above proviso, for Regular Quanoongo training or Refresher Course Quanoongo Training of two months irrespective of his seniority and on passing the Regular Quanoongo examination or Refresher Court Quanoongo training, he shall be entitled to be made permanent on the post of Inspector but if such Inspector fails to take the training after being so selected or fails to pass the above examination, he shall be reverted to the post of Patwari." 6. The dispute is confined to a limited question whether the petitioner, after having worked as an efficient Patwari since 1964, was entitled for being promoted as Land Revenue Inspector or not ? The dispute is confined to a limited question whether the petitioner, after having worked as an efficient Patwari since 1964, was entitled for being promoted as Land Revenue Inspector or not ? The promotion is to be done in accordance with the Rule 171. In view of the amendment made therein, the Collector, with the previous approval of the Director, Land Records, may appoint a Patwari who has rendered meritorious services and devotion to duty on the post of the Inspector, Land Records, if he fulfils the conditions laid down in rule 300 of the Rules. 7. On 5th of January, 1985, a recommendation was made by the Tehsildar on the basis of the recommendation of the Director that the petitioner may be appointed to the post of Girdawar (Inspector). The requisite qualification, as contained in rule 300 of the Rules, is reproduced below:- an style='font-family:Ankit'HINDI MATTER /b/spanThere is no denial of the fact that the petitioner possesses requisite qualification for promotion as contemplated under rule 300. 8. The counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the State does not disclose any reason denying promotion to the petitioner. A very strange case has been set up therein that, even if the petitioner was efficient, competent and hard-working, he does not have a right of promotion. There is no factual reply to the writ petition. 9. The entire philosophy of service jurisprudence is based on achieving the efficiency in public service. In order to generate efficiency and better output from its employees, the Government has to take care of promotional avenues which have been recognised as incidence of service. 10. Stagnation or denying the legitimate right of promotion kills the desire to work. It affects the total output of the employee. Who suffers then ? Not only the Government, but the common man, who is directly concerned and affected by the working of the employee. In order to have good result in the working of the Government, the question of promotion should be considered fairly and without causing any unnecessary delay. If it is done so, it will generate the desire to do more work. 11. If under the Rules, the petitioner fulfils the requisite qualification and is not otherwise disqualified to be promoted, it gives him a right to be promoted to the higher post, unless it was a selection post. Denying the same would be an arbitrary act of the Government. 11. If under the Rules, the petitioner fulfils the requisite qualification and is not otherwise disqualified to be promoted, it gives him a right to be promoted to the higher post, unless it was a selection post. Denying the same would be an arbitrary act of the Government. The administrative actions have also to meet the test of reasonableness. They are supposed to be fair and just. 12. I find no explanation on the record as to why the demand for justice, made by the petitioner, has not been disposed of so far. It was made about four years back, claiming promotion to the post of the Land Revenue Inspector. The functioning of the Government tells a very sorry state of affairs. The right to be considered for promotion is inherent in the service jurisprudence, unless the employee is otherwise disqualified. 13. Under these circumstances, I direct the respondent No. 1 to consider his case in accordance with the law, if he is eligible for appointment and otherwise not disqualified for promotion to the post of Land Revenue Inspector, from the date when he became entitled for promotion, with all consequential benefits to which he is entitled. Specific order is to be passed by the respondent No. 1 within a period of one month from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before him. 14. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed with Rs. 1,000/-as cost.Petition Allowed with costs. *******