R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, learned standing counsel and also perused the record. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4. 10. 1982, whereby representation filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed by respondent No. 2 commissioner. Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the respondent No. 4 was directed to be promoted to the post of Senior Tax Collector, after setting aside the promotion of the petitioner to the said post. ( 3 ) RELEVANT facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of pond keeper vide order dated 26. 6. 1977, and vide order dated 18. 6. 1977/21. 6. 1977 he was promoted to the post of tax Collector. After the lapse of four years, respondent No. 4 challenged the validity of the promotion of the petitioner, before respondent No. 2. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, faizabad and filed an appeal. Appeal filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed by the commissioner and the promotion of the petitioner, to the post of Senior Tax Collector was cancelled holding that respondent No. 4 was senior to the petitioner, he was, therefore, entitled to be promoted to the post of Tax Collector. As stated above, petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order dated 14. 10. 1982 by means of this petition. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 2 without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was urged that the petitioner was not even impleaded as a party in the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 2. It was also submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Tax Collector after following the procedure prescribed under the Rules, there was, therefore, no justification for respondent No. 2, to set aside his promotion that too, on highly belated appeal filed by respondent No. 4. ( 5 ) ON the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 supported the validity of the impugned order. It was urged that the said order was quite legal. According to learned counsel for the said respondent. ( 5 ) ON the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 supported the validity of the impugned order. It was urged that the said order was quite legal. According to learned counsel for the said respondent. It was not necessary to Implead the petitioner in the appeal and to afford him opportunity of hearing, before the appeal was allowed by respondent No. 2. ( 6 ) I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it has not been disputed that in the appeal. the petitioner was not impleaded as a party and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed by the respondent No. 2. It is also admitted that respondent No. 4 filed the appeal after four years of the promotion of the petitioner. It is well settled in law that no order effecting the civil right of any person, should be passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing or to explain his case. By means of the impugned order, the petitioner was deprived of the post of Senior Tax Collector and he was reverted back to the post of pond keeper without affording him opportunity of hearing, the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural Justice. Same is, therefore, non-est and unenforceable in law. ( 8 ) I have also gone through the impugned order dated 18. 6. 1977/ 21. 6. 1977. In the said order, only it has been stated that respondent No. 4 was senior to the petitioner and he appears to be entitled to promotion on the basis of seniority. ( 9 ) THE criteria for promotion to the higher post under the relevant rules, i. e. , U. P. Zila Parishad services Rules. 1970 (for short the rules) is seniority-cum-fitness. Rule 24 of the said Rules is quoted below : "24. Appointment by promotion.-- (1) For the purpose of recruitment by promotion selection on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, shall be made from amongst all the eligible servants of the zila Parishad who have put in the required length of service on the first day of January of the year in which the selection is made. Appointment by promotion.-- (1) For the purpose of recruitment by promotion selection on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, shall be made from amongst all the eligible servants of the zila Parishad who have put in the required length of service on the first day of January of the year in which the selection is made. (2) The Mukhya Adhtkari shall cause to be placed before the Chunao Samiti all the relevant papers including the character rolls and service books of all the eligible candidates and the gradation list. " ( 10 ) IT is evident from the above noted rule that promotions are to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitneas from amongst all eligible servants of Zila Parishad who have put in the required length of service on the first day of January of the year in which selection is made. Mukhya Adhikari is required to place all the relevant papers including character rolls and service books of all eligible candidates including the gradation list. Further under the Rules, there is no provision of filing an appeal against an order appointing a person by promotion. The appeal is provided under Rule 40 of the Rules against the order imposing penalty, specified in Rule 32. However, in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 41 read with Rule 48 only representation could be filed before the Commissioner of the Division. Sub-rule [3) of Rule 41 and Rule 48 read as under : "41. Appellate authorities.-- (1 ). . . . . (2 ). . . . . (3) in the case of all other servants, an appeal or representation, as the case may be, shall lie to the Commissioner of the Division. " "48. Representations in respect of other service matter may be made by an officer or servant of a zila Parishad to the appellate authority mentioned in Rule 41. The provisions of Rules 42, 43, 44 and 46 shall also apply to such representation. " ( 11 ) THE appeal or representation can be filed and entertained if the same is submitted within 90 days. In the present case, the appeal was admittedly filed four years after the promotion of the petitioner. The provisions of Rules 42, 43, 44 and 46 shall also apply to such representation. " ( 11 ) THE appeal or representation can be filed and entertained if the same is submitted within 90 days. In the present case, the appeal was admittedly filed four years after the promotion of the petitioner. In view of the provisions of the rules, the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 should not have been entertained by the Commissioner as the same was not maintainable, further it was filed after inordinate delay and no cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was either shown by the respondent No. 4, nor the delay was sought to be condoned. The Commissioner, thus, acted in excess of his jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal and allowing the same without applying his mind to the question of delay. This writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions, impugned order dated 4. 10. 1992 passed by respondent no. 2 allowing the appeal of respondent No. 4 and setting aside the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Senior Tax Collector of Zila Parishad, Bahraich ts, hereby, quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Senior Tax Collector of Zila Parishad, bahraich. The petitioner shall, however, be entitled to his salary and other benefits admissible to the said post from the date he joins the said post. .