JUDGMENT 1. - In pursuance to this Court's order dated August 11, 1992, the petitioner Prahlad Kumar Pareek got published the notices of the respondents in daily News Paper. Service on the respondents in Writ Petition No. 607/1988 was complete on May 1. 1996 whereas in Writ Petition No. 1279 of 1988 it was complete on January 11, 1993. Matters were finally heard. Since the questions of law and fact are identical in both these writ petitions they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions is that they were illegally denied promotion to the post of Assistant Project Officer. The petitioners have approached this court with the prayer that they be ordered to be promoted to the said post with all consequential benefits from the date their juniors were promoted. 3. The petitioners averred in the writ petitions that they were senior to all other employees who were considered by the DPC but the DPC had not followed the provisions contained in Regulation 9 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Employees (Supervisory) Staff condition of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations 1980 (for short the Regulations of 1980) and promoted junior employees in an arbitrary manner ignoring the claim of the petitioners. The work and performance of the petitioner has always been appreciated by their superiors and no adverse entry or remakes in the service record was ever conveyed to the petitioners. The petitioners were eligible as well as meritorious and fit to be considered for promotion. 4. No reply was filed in writ petition No. 1279 of 1988 by the respondents whereas in writ petition No. 607 of 1988 reply was submitted by the respondent R.C.D.F. in the year 1999. 5. In addition of preliminary objection in respect of maintainability and continuance of the writ petition, the respondent RCDF pleaded in the reply that the case of Ravindra Prakash Mathur was considered for the post of Assistant Project Officer but due to the adverse entries in the A.PA.Rs., the promotion was not given to him. It was further pleaded that DPC was held again on November 22, 1998 and the result is under sealed cover as per the decision of the DPC. It was further pleaded that DPC was held again on November 22, 1998 and the result is under sealed cover as per the decision of the DPC. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner is now working under the control of the Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Jaipur and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 6. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 7. As no reply to the writ petition instituted by Prahlad Kumar Pareek has been filed by the respondents, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments incorporated in the writ petition filed by the petitioner Prahlad Kumar Pareek. 8. In Ravindra Prakash Mathur's case, the respondent RCDF moved an application for imp leading Jaipur Zile Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Jaipur as a party. This court vide order dated October 7, 1998 dismissed the said application. In terms of Regulation 9 of the Regulations 1980 the promotion to the post of Assistant Project Officer is required to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit alone. From the material on record it has not been established that if there were entices in the A.P.A.Rs. of the petitioner the said entries were ever communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the petitioners averments that they were senior and had so good performance with unquestionable integrity and their service record was quite clean. It has not been specifically averred in the reply submitted by the respondent RCDF as to why the result of petitioner Ravindra Prakash Mathur was kept in the sealed cover. Even otherwise the fact in respect of DPC conducted on November 22, 1998 is not relevant for the just decision of this writ petition. The respondent RCDF has not produced the service record of the petitioner before me and on the basis of bald allegations stated in the reply to the writ petition. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent RCDF. 9. In view of what I have discussed here-in-above, both the writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent RCDF. 9. In view of what I have discussed here-in-above, both the writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. The respondent RCDF is directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion with all consequential benefits on the post of Assistant Project Officer from the date on which their juniors had been promoted. The petitioners shall also be entitled to the costs of the writ petitions.Writ Petition allowed. *******