JUDGMENT 1. - Since the aforesaid writ petitions involve identical questions of law. They are being disposed of by this common single order. 2. For the sake of convenience and ready reference and of the cost of avoiding repetition I deem it appropriate to refer to the facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2307/94 which is being treated as main case. 3. The grievance of the petitioners in short is that they are presently working as lower division clerks in the transport department of the State Government and are eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspectors (for short "MVSI") which is the lower post in the cadre of Subordinate Services of the Transport Department Govt. of Rajasthan and the employee of the said department constituting the said cadre are governed by The Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 as per which the post of MVSI is to be filled in 25% by promotion from amongst the departmental candidates i.e. from cadre of L.D.C.s while 75% of the said posts are to be filled by way of direct recruitment. The grievance of the petitioner is that since they have already undergone requisite training and passed departmental test which is essential pre-requisite condition for consideration against promotion quota and since they are all holding the post of L.D.C.s. notwithstanding the fact that they were not impleaded as necessary parties before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (respondent No. 3) in appeal No. 199/93 by Shankerlal respondent No. 2 herein who was from the cadre of L.D.C.s in the Transport Department and appellant before the said Tribunal, are aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 29.3.1994 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby their right for consideration for promotion on the post of MVSI has been seriously prejudiced by the impugned order of the Tribunal and hence they have jointly filed the present writ petitions for enforcement of their fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also annexed statement with the writ petitions vide Schedule A indicating their academic qualifications and the posts held by them and respective dates of their confirmation in the cadre of L.D.Cs. They have further contended that the respondents published a seniority list of L.D.C.s On 28.10.1985 in which the names of the petitioners have been indicated at serial Nos. They have further contended that the respondents published a seniority list of L.D.C.s On 28.10.1985 in which the names of the petitioners have been indicated at serial Nos. 57, 00 and 68 respectively vide Annexure 1, dated 28.1.1985 of the Transport Department of the State Government. 4. During the course of hearing it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the L.D.Cs. working in the Transport Department are also entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of MVSI. Since they have no other separate channel of promotion for the said post which envisages promotion on the post of MVSI from amongst eligible candidates from cadre of L.D.C's against 25% quota which is reserved for the said departmental candidates. While 75%o is for the direct recruits in accordance with the rules of 1963 as aforesaid. They are all matriculate and confirmed L.D.Cs. possessing diploma in automobile engineering recognised by the Government of Rajasthan and some of them have also passed the departmental examination in automobile engineering prescribed by the Transport Department of the State Government which is a pre-requisite condition for determining their eligibility for the post of MVSI. According to the petitioners they are all eligible for promotion against 25% quota reserved for confirmed L.D.Cs. working in the department and as per the petitioners' information there are approximately 100 posts still available in the transport - department in the cadre of MVSIs. The relevant schedule which provides channel of promotion/direct recruitment for the post of MVSIs. is appended as schedule 1 to the Rules of 1963 as amended by the Rajasthan Transport Service Rules of 1979 and which was incorporated in the rules vide Notification of the State Government dated 20.10.1993. The source of recruitment for the post of MVSIs is 25% by promotion and 75% by direct recruitment and the appointments to the said post are to be made either by way of direct recruitment or by promotion from amongst the cadre of L.D.Cs. of the transport department. The minimum experience and qualification which essentially required for promotion has been indicated in the said schedule as under: "Matriculate confirmed LDC possessing Diploma or Certificate in Automobile Engineering recognised by the Government of Rajasthan or has passed a departmental examination in Automobile Engineering prescribed by the Transport Department of the Government of Rajasthan. of the transport department. The minimum experience and qualification which essentially required for promotion has been indicated in the said schedule as under: "Matriculate confirmed LDC possessing Diploma or Certificate in Automobile Engineering recognised by the Government of Rajasthan or has passed a departmental examination in Automobile Engineering prescribed by the Transport Department of the Government of Rajasthan. Provided that the persons already working as Motor Vehicle Sub 5 Inspectors on ad hoc basis substantively holding a post of L.D.C. in the Transport Department on 1.1.1971 and being Matriculate could be continued on the post if they acquire the above technical qualification within a maximum period of one year from the date of promulgation of these Rules." 5. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioners had undergone requisite training and thereafter had appeared in the departmental examination held in September, 1993 and were declared successful, examination conducted by the Transport Department by order, dated 25.10.1993 vide Annexure 3 on the record, vide Annexure 3. 6. It has further being contended by the petitioners that the order, dated 7.8.1993 by which they were sent for training was challenged by one Shanker Lal Sharma who is serving as LDC in the office of District Transport Officer, Sriganganagar (respondent no. 2) before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal for short the Tribunal and he prayed before the said Tribunal that the aforesaid order, dated 7.8.1993 deserves to be modified and their names should also he included in the list of the candidates who have been selected for training for the post of MVSIs. Be that as it may, the State Government also filed its reply to appeal and contested the same. Be that as it may, the State Government also filed its reply to appeal and contested the same. Learned Tribunal vide its order, dated 29.3.1994 allowed the said appeal preferred by Shanker Lal Sharma respondent No. 2 herein by observing that since the L.D.C.s have the right to opt and for their consideration for promotion on the post of MVSIs, if they exercise their options in this regard and subject to fulfillment of their eligibility conditions as prescribed under the rules and since the appellant Shanker Lal Sharma had not been confirmed on the post of U.D.C. and his lien existed on the post of L.D.C. and when he had given his option for promotion to the post of MVSI, the department cannot ignore his option to promote him as M.V.S.I. and consequently he had a right to be considered for promotion for the same post. It was further observed by the learned Tribunal that in that situation his all rights for promotion to the post of U.D.C. would stand automatically extinguished. One he had opted for promotion to the post of M.V.S.I. and the same had been accepted by the Department. In view of this position exclusion of the said appellant from sending him for training for Automobile Refresher course was patently illegal and wrong, since the training of those who were sent for the same i.e. the petitioner's herein had already since been attempted while the appellant though eligible was not sent for training. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal preferred by respondent No. 2 was accepted by the learned Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to sent him for training in the first available course and after successful completion of the training, his case may he considered for promotion to the post of MVSI in accordance with his seniority in the cadre of L.D.C.s as and when vacancies are available. It was further directed that no junior person to the said appellant if he had already completed the training would he considered and promoted to the post of MVSI, till the said appellant completes his training and such promotions would be made when the appellant also becomes eligible and his candidature would also be considered alongwith other eligible candidates in accordance with the rules who have already completed their training but not appointed. 7. 7. It has been brought to my notice that so far as respondent No. 2 was concerned, he had already been promoted as U.D.C. by the Transport Department on recommendations of the D.P.C. vide order, dated 31.3.1992 and was later on confirmed as U.D.C. on 22.12.1993. He is presently working as U.D.C. duly confirmed in the said cadre. 8. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended at the bar that the decision of the learned Tribunal dated 29.3.1994 by which the appellant (respondent No. 2) was allowed to undergo training for the post of M.V.S.I. has seriously jeopardised the right and interest of the petitioners since despite their fulfilling the eligible conditions' which are requisite for appointment on the post of MVSIs, in view of the aforesaid decision of the learned Tribunal, their rights have been seriously infringed, since the State Government has been restrained even for consideration of their cases for promotion inspite of the availability of the vacancies against the promotion quota till respondent No. 2 successfully undertakes the training which is beyond the control of the petitioners. They have further contended apart from the above the impugned decision of the learned Tribunal was assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground inter-alia that the matter with regard to sending respondent No. 2 for training is it service matter falling within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976 and further direction which has been given to the Government restraining it from considering the cases for promotion of all those persons who were considered to he junior to respondent No. 2 till he successfully completes his training as well as departmental examination, is wholly perverse and deserves to be quashed and set aside. They have further contended that since the petitioners were not impleaded as parties by respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal, it was not proper for the learned Tribunal to pass any order at their hack which has prejudiced their rights for consideration for promotion. They have further contended that since the petitioners were not impleaded as parties by respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal, it was not proper for the learned Tribunal to pass any order at their hack which has prejudiced their rights for consideration for promotion. By way of alternative argument it was contended before this court that while it is true that respondent No. 2 is senior quo the petitioners having already been promoted as U.D.C. while the petitioners are in the cadre of L.D.C.s after his regular selection by the D.P.C. and later on confirmed in the said cadre and so far as the petitioners are concerned, despite the fact that persons junior to them have already been promoted as U.D.Cs., hut since they have already exercised their options for consideration for promotion to the post of MVSI, they cannot he denied their promotional avenues, hence it has been contended that the impugned order, dated 29.3.1994 passed by learned Tribunal is beyond the scope of the Act of 1976 and also the Rules of 1963 as amended. It has further been contended by the learned counsel that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider one salient aspect of the matter that since after undertaking it refresher course a candidate has to appear in the departmental examination and if for any good reason any of the said candidate fails to quality the departmental examination to he held by the department in future, the petitioner who were already eligible on the relevant date when they had applied, will he deprived of their promotional avenues till the other candidate i.e. respondent No. 2 herein is made to appear and passes the departmental examination for the post of M.V.S.I. notwithstanding his promotion as U.D.C. This kind of conditional order as passed by learned Tribunal, in my considered opinion, obviously cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and obviously deserves to he quashed and set aside. Since the promotional avenues of those eligible candidates from the cadre of L.D.C.'s I.C. the petitioners herein and other candidates were deprived of their promotional avenues for the said post notwithstanding their having completed the training from the said post earlier in point of tithe than respondent No. 2. 9. Since the promotional avenues of those eligible candidates from the cadre of L.D.C.'s I.C. the petitioners herein and other candidates were deprived of their promotional avenues for the said post notwithstanding their having completed the training from the said post earlier in point of tithe than respondent No. 2. 9. During the course of hearing Shri Bhandari, learned counsel for the State has also not been successful in controverting the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners and he has simply supported the judgment of learned Tribunal on the: ground that since from the preamble of Rajasthan Civil Service (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976 it is apparent that the said legislation has been enacted with a view to provide for the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal for services matters and matters incidentally through and as per the definition of Services Matters as incorporated in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act (Service Matter) means one or more than one of the following matters relating to a Government servant and matters pertaining to promotion from amongst the eligible candidates who fulfil the requisite conditions for their consideration for appointment on the post of MVSIs as per the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1963 as referred to above learned Tribunal has rightly held that training is essential requirement for eligibility for promotion and is a condition prescribed for promotion to the post of MVSI in the Rules of 1963 and hence it is a service matter being a part of promotion process. It was further contended by learned counsel that as the promotion to the post of MVSI is a service matter, the training being a matter incidental thereto and relating to a Government Servant affecting him in his personal capacity, the Tribunal rightly exercised its jurisdiction in deciding the appeal in favour of respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel has further supported the impugned order of learned Tribunal by contending that since there are two avenues for the post of MVSI from amongst serving L.D.Cs in the Transport Department as well as those serving as L.D.Cs. in the said department, it was necessary to invite options from both the categories of candidates and it was necessary for the learned Tribunal to decide in which line of L.D.Cs. should be given promotion. in the said department, it was necessary to invite options from both the categories of candidates and it was necessary for the learned Tribunal to decide in which line of L.D.Cs. should be given promotion. He has further supported the impugned order of the learned Tribunal on the ground that respondent No. 2 gave his option for the post of MVSI number of times but the same was not considered by the department earlier till finally he was sent for training and he had never prayed for his promotion as U.D.C. and inspite of this he had been promoted to the post of U.D.C. which obviously came in his way after consideration of his original claim for promotion as MVSI. It was further contended that the learned counsel that tribunal had made no error in deciding the appeal of respondent No. 2 Shaker Lal Sharma and therefore, no interference should be done by this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Shri Bhandari learned counsel for the State while opposing maintainability of the writ petitions on merits on the ground that matter of sending the employees for training is not a service matter nor it was mandatory to get an employee thrown for promotion, has further contended that since the appellant was not eligible for promotion on the post of MVSI hence he was not sent for training by them. In this regard he has stated that there are two avenues of promotion for the post of MVSI, one from the cadre of Rajasthan Subordinate Office Ministerial Staff and the other Transport Subordinate Services itself. As per the seniority the petitioner had become due for promotion on the post of U.D.C. earlier and when he exercised his option in writing for promotion on the post of U.D.C., he was given regular promotion on the said post on the recommendation of the D.P.C. and he joined as U.D.C. w.e.f. 2.4.1992 and hence he was not eligible for consideration for the post of MVSI and consequently he was not sent for training. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the impugned judgment/order dated 29.3.1994 passed by learned Tribunal. 12. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the impugned judgment/order dated 29.3.1994 passed by learned Tribunal. 12. Prima-facie I am of the considered view that once two avenues for promotion on the post of MVSI have been clearly demarcated under the Rules i.e. one from ministerial cadre of Rajasthan Subordinate Services while another from the Transport Department Subordinate Services of the State, and once the training is essential pre-requisite for appointments on the post of MVSIs, apart from the minimum qualifications and experience prescribed under the Rules of 1Q63, it is not open to the State Government to advance the contention by saying that sending an employee for training is not a service matter and further it is also not open to them to say that it was not mandatory for them to get an employee trained for promotion on the post of MVSI once it is essential requirement under the Rules. 13. The arguments advanced by Shri Bhandari in this regard as aforesaid are absolutely fallacious and not tenable being contrary to the Rules. I am further of the considered opinion that once option was invited from the petitioners alongwith other similar placed candidates for being considered for promotion to the post of MVSI and since the training is a condition precedent under the Rules of 1963 being an essential requirement under the Rules, it was not permissible to the State to deprive the petitioner of opportunity of promotion for being considered for the said post once they had exercised the option in accordance with the Rules and the options having been accepted by the State and they also having undergone the requisite training which the petitioners had successfully completed, there was no reason or justification for withholding their promotion merely on the ground due to non-inclusion of respondent No. 2. However, in this regard I am of the view that the learned Tribunal is obviously not correct in making the observations in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2307/94 that no junior person to the appellant if he has already completed the training would be considered and promoted to the said post till the appellant completes his training and such promotions would be made when the appellant also becomes eligible and his candidature would also be considered alongwith other eligible persons as per the Rules. The appellant before the Tribunal was one Shanker Lal Sharma who has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2307/94. The aforesaid observation of learned Tribunal is absolutely arbitrary and contrary to the law for the reason that the petitioners in S.B.C.WP No. 2307/94 as well as in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2110/87 belong to the cadre of L.D.C.s and had exercised their option for being considered for promotion to the post of MVSI being candidates from the department in accordance with the Rules and since they fulfill the eligibility conditions as prescribed under the Rules of 1963 were accordingly sent for training for the post of MVSI well in advance were awaiting their promotion orders when Shanker Lal Sharma, respondent No. 2, subsequently moved before the learned Tribunal and sought stay of the appointments of the aforesaid petitioners by filing an appeal before it vide appeal No. 199/93 which was decided by the impugned order of the Tribunal on 29.3.1994. I am of the considered opinion that once having undergone the requisite training and also on fulfilment of eligibility conditions prescribed under the Rule there was absolutely no justification for the learned Tribunal to have withheld the promotions on the post of MVSI of the petitioners, merely for the reason that no junior person to the said appellant shall be considered and permitted to be promoted to the post of MVSI till the said appellant had completed his training for the said post. I am of the view that it is wholly unjust and improper for the learned Tribunal to have made this observation, since the promotions of the petitioners on the post of MVSI was obviously withheld in view of the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal which also affected them seriously and the same is not tenable in law because the candidates to whom the promotional rights had accrued by virtue of fulfilment of eligibility conditions earlier in point of time should not be deprived of their promotional avenues, merely because some other candidates who belong to the cadre of U.D.Cs. which is a cadre other than the cadre of L.D.Cs. which is prescribed under the Rules, should complete his training at first instance and till then the promotional orders of other candidates should be withheld which is absolutely fallacious and wholly unjustified. 14. In S.B.C.WP. which is a cadre other than the cadre of L.D.Cs. which is prescribed under the Rules, should complete his training at first instance and till then the promotional orders of other candidates should be withheld which is absolutely fallacious and wholly unjustified. 14. In S.B.C.WP. No. 2366/94 the petitioner State through Transport Department Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur has challenged the impugned order of learned Tribunal dated 29.3.1994 and has sought the direction from this court that the Transport Department of the State should be allowed to make promotions to the post of MVSI of the successful candidates in accordance with the Rules and have also sought direction from this. court that the impugned order, dated 29.3.1994 passed by learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside. 15. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions two applications have been filed in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2307/94 and C.W.P. No. 236()/94 on behalf of the petitioner-applicants which have been taken on the record, that pending the hearing of the aforesaid writ petitions the State. Government in terms of its order, dated 14.7.1997 had already promoted respondent No. 2 Shanker Lal Sharma as MVS1 against the vacancy of the year 1994-95. They have further stated that the petitioners in S.B.C.W.P. Nos. 2307/94 d 236/94 have already been promoted as MVSIs. vide orders dated 11.5.1997, 4.7.1997 and 14.7.1997 respectively. In view of the said promotional orders the writ petitions have consequently become infructuous. 16. As a result of the above discussions and in view of the aforesaid promotion orders passed in S.B.C.W.P. Nos. 2307/94 and 2110/87 the said writ petitions are allowed, while S.B.C.W.P. No. 2366/94 preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the impugned order of learned Tribunal is disposed of as having become infructuous. The order dated 26.5.1994 passed in D.B. Civil Misc. 2307/94 and 2110/87 the said writ petitions are allowed, while S.B.C.W.P. No. 2366/94 preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the impugned order of learned Tribunal is disposed of as having become infructuous. The order dated 26.5.1994 passed in D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1982/94 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2307/94 shall automatically stand vacated in view of the above applications moved by the petitioners/applicants in Civil Writ Petition No. 2307/94 & Civil Writ Petition No. 2366/94, by the Transport Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 1) is consequently directed to draw up a fresh seniority list of the candidates who have already been promoted on the post of MVSIs and make the proper placements of the petitioners who have also been promoted on the post of MVSIs, and give them the benefit of seniority from due date in accordance with the rules after determining their inter-se seniority qua the candidates who are already working as MVSIs. The said seniority list shall he drawn up and published by the respondents positively within a period eight weeks from today by convening a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee in this regard in accordance with the Rules. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. *******