JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has sought the relief that the order dated 19.1.90 (Annex.-5) giving appointment to respondent No. 5 on the post of Nakedar in the Municipal Council, Jodhpur (as it then was) may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Nakedar. A further relief is claimed in the writ petition that the respondent Municipal Council, Jodhpur may be directed to determine the vacancies as per Rule 10, Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (in short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1963') and after determining the vacancies regular selection be made. 2. The petitioner's case is that he was initially appointed on the post of Sub-Nakedar in the Municipal Council, Jodhpur. He was promoted to the post of Nakedar on 8.5.68 for one year or till regularly selected candidates are available. The name of the petitioner in the seniority-list of Sub-Nakedar has been shown at Serial No. 4, published on 18.9.81. Three senior persons named in the seniority-list have already been promoted and now he is seniormost. Thus, he has a right to be promoted to the post of Nakedar being the seniormost amongst the Sub-Nakedars. Later on the petitioner was again asked to work on the post of Sub-Nakedar. Respondent No. 5 Jagdish Arora who was appointed in the year 1977 on the post of Driver on substantive basis could not have been appointed on the post of Nakedar blocking the chances of the petitioner's promotion to the post of Nakedar and therefore, his appointment by order dated 19.1.90 (Annex.-5) to the post of Nakedar be declared illegal. 3. No return was filed by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur although the matter is pending in the Court since the year 1990. 4. It appears from the record that Jagdish Arora was initially appointed on the post of Driver on 7.11.77. By order dated 23.2.83, Jagdish Arora (respondent No. 5) was temporarily appointed on the post of Nakedar under the ex-servicemen quota. On 17.11.88, the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jodhpur has made recommendation to the State that the appointment made on the post of Nakedar of respondent No. 5 could be regularised if sanction is accorded. By order dated 23.2.83, Jagdish Arora (respondent No. 5) was temporarily appointed on the post of Nakedar under the ex-servicemen quota. On 17.11.88, the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jodhpur has made recommendation to the State that the appointment made on the post of Nakedar of respondent No. 5 could be regularised if sanction is accorded. On 7.1.89, by Annex-8 the State Government made recommendation for regularisation of appointment of the respondent No. 5 on the post of Nakedar from 30.9.88 and ultimately, by the impugned order dated 19.1.90 (Annex-5) the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Nakedar was regularised from 30.9.88. By reading the recommendations and the order, it is clear that respondent No. 5 was appointed on the post of Nakedar under the ex-sercicemen quota which is 121/2%. 5. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1963 provides the method of recruitment whereunder the appointment to the post can be made by direct recruitment, by promotion, by transfer or by deputation from the State Government. For the purposes of promotion, the post of Nakedar is to be filled in from the Sub-Nakedars or Nailey Mohrirs having 5 years' experience. The ratio for filling the vacancies by direct recruitment and by promotion is 50-50 unless otherwise provided. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1963 121/2% vacancies of the total vacancies in a year are reserved for the ex-servicemen. 6. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Nakedar on the ground that his chances of promotion are being affected on account of the appointment of respondent No. 5. Without going into other questions it is necessary first to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the appointment made in favour of respondent No. 5. The right to consideration for promotion should not be confused with mere chance of promotion. If there is denial of consideration for promotion then that can certainly be challenged by the petitioner but, if there is no denial of right to consideration for promotion, the order of appointment cannot be challenged on the mere ground of chance of promotion. The respondent No. 5 was appointed under the direct recruitment quota whereas the petitioner has claimed appointment to the post of Nakedar under promotion-quota. The quota fixed for promotion and for direct recruitment is 50-50. The respondent No. 5 was appointed under the direct recruitment quota whereas the petitioner has claimed appointment to the post of Nakedar under promotion-quota. The quota fixed for promotion and for direct recruitment is 50-50. The petitioner's claim is not under the direct recruitment quota but is under the promotion quota. Thus the petitioner's case does not fall within the quota of direct recruitment. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the order of appointment made in favour of respondent No. 5 from the quota of direct recruitment on the ground of not considering his case for promotion under that quota. Further, the appointment of respondent No. 5 was made against the 121/2% reserved vacancies of the ex-servicemen. Admittedly, the petitioner is not an ex- serviceman, therefore, he does not have any entitlement to be appointed against the reserved vacancies of the ex-servicemen. Thus, in my opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Nakedar made by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur inasmuch as he can neither claim appointment on the post of Nakedar under the direct recruitment quota nor against the vacancies reserved for the ex- servicemen. It may also be observed that respondent No. 5 was appointed on the post of Nakedar on 23.2.83 under the ex-servicemen quota and by order dated 19.1.90 his appointment on the said post was simply regularised. The order dated 23.2.83 is not under challenge. Under these facts and circumstances, no writ can be issued for quashing the order dated 19.1.90 whereby respondent No. 5 has been regularised on the post of Nakedar in this writ petition. 7. However, the matter does not end here. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Nakedar in the year 1968. The seniority-list published of Sub-Nakedars shows the petitioner's position at serial No. 4 as on 18.1.81. According to the petitioner, all the three persons senior to him have already been promoted and he is the seniormost Sub-Nakedar. Under the Rules of 1963 the quota for promotion and direct recruitment is fixed to be 50-50. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1963 provides determination of the vacancies. According to the petitioner, all the three persons senior to him have already been promoted and he is the seniormost Sub-Nakedar. Under the Rules of 1963 the quota for promotion and direct recruitment is fixed to be 50-50. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1963 provides determination of the vacancies. A duty is thus cast on the Executive Officer, subject to the provisions of the Rules and the directions of the State Government to determine the number of vacancies at the commencement of each year anticipated under each grade under different categories during the course of the year and the number of persons likely to be recruited/promoted. The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur (erstwhile Municipal Council) and its officers are under the duty to act in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules of 1963 and determine the year-wise vacancies. It appears that nothing has been done in this respect, because otherwise the petitioner would have been considered for promotion to the post of Nakedar in course of all these years. 8. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondent No. 6 Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and its appropriate authorities will determine the vacancies of Nakedar for each year from 1983-84 and onwards. For this, they will undertake the exercise of regular promotion of the petitioner to the post of Nakedar keeping in view the over-all quota of direct recruitment as well as promotion quota and while making such promotions the appropriate authorities will keep in mind the rules of promotion in the particular year for which the vacancies are required to be filled. The authorities will do the same within a period of six months from the date of presentation of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition partly allowed. *******