JUDGMENT : A.P. Sahi, J – This writ petition has been filed questioning the action of the Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, through his order dated 21.8.2007 whereby the examinations held in the year 2000 for promotion on the post of Rectangulator from the post of Chainman/Flagman has been cancelled and a direction has been issued to hold fresh examinations as also for filling up the backlog vacancies. 2. The petitioners contends that the State Government issued a Government Order on 6.7.1985, a copy whereof has been placed on record, whereby such promotions were made permissible keeping in view the conditions laid down therein. The said Government Order indicates holding of an examination and evaluation of the candidates on the basis of the marks obtained in the said examination. The Consolidation Commissioner on 30.6.2000 issued necessary orders under the said Government Order directing all District Deputy Director of Consolidations and the District Magistrates to conduct the said exercise and hold the examination for the promotions of eligible candidates. Consequent to the aforesaid order issued, the examinations were held on 30.9.2000 in respect of 12 Units and the petitioners claim that they have all appeared and passed in the said examinations the results whereof were declared on 4.10.2000. A copy of the said declaration has been placed on record as Annexure-4. 3. Before proceeding to record any finding, it will be appropriate to quote the Government Order dated 6.7.1985:- ^^izs"kd] ch0ds0 flag ;kno la;qDr lfpo mRrj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] pdcanh vk;qDr] mRrj izns'k] y[kumA y[kum % fnukad 6 tqykbZ] 1985 fo"k;% psueSu@Q~ySxeSu dh inksUufr ds ckjs esaA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;d vius i= la[;k &76@jsDV0 73@ 80&81 fnukad 13 Qjojh] 1985 dks d`i;k lanfHkZr djsa A bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd vk;rdrkZ in ij dsoy ;ksX; rFkk vuqHkoh psueSu@Q~ySxeSu dks inksUufr nsus ds laca/k esa fuEu ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij 'kklu dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA 1- U;qure 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk twfu;j gkbZ Ldwy 2- yxkrkj 5 o"kksZa dk psueSu@Q~ySxeSu ds in ij dk;Z dk vuqHko 3- ftyk Lrj ij QhYMcqd cukuk] IykfVax] uEcjvankth rFkk jdck cjkjh dh ijh{kk esa 75 izfr'kr vadA d`I;k iz'uxr izdj.k esa m0iz0 pdcanh foHkkx pdcUnh drkZ lsok fu;ekoyh 1978 esa ;Fkk LFkku la'kks/ku gsrq fgUnh rFkk vaxzsth vkys[k Hkstus dk d"V djsa rkfd vfxze dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsA Hkonh; ch0ds0 flag ;kno la;qDr lfpoA 4. In spite of the declaration of the results, it appears that the Union of Consolidation Lekhpals, who were entitled for being considered for such promotion, raised certain dispute and the promotions were not finalized even though the results had been declared. The matter was kept pending even though representations were made and ultimately by the impugned order dated 21.8.2007 the examination which was held for the 12 Units was cancelled on the ground that 7 years have passed and the examination of other Units could not have been held, therefore, the examination should be held afresh and the backlog vacancies should also be filled up. 5. The writ petition was entertained and on 16.1.2008, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that the operation of the order dated 21.8.2007 shall remain stayed and the respondents were restrained from holding any fresh examinations as per the direction dated 8.1.2008 which was in pursuance of the impugned order dated 21.8.2007. 6. At the very out set, it may be placed on record that the respondent - State has filed a supplementary-counter-affidavit indicating that the examinations have been held on 15.1.2008 just a day before passing of the interim order and, therefore, the said examinations were not given effect to in view of the interim order passed by this Court and no promotions were made. It is, however, indicated in one of the Affidavits that the backlog vacancies had been filled up by a promotion order dated 10.1.2008. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no discrepancy in the holding of the examinations in the year 2000 and that the respondent held the examination only for 12 Units for which the petitioners cannot be faulted with. If examinations were to be held in other Units as well, it was open to the respondents to have held examinations but merely because the examinations were not held in other Units, the result of the petitioners cannot be cancelled. He submits that it is not the case of the respondents that there was any complaint with regard to the actual holding of the examination or any pilferage in the examination. The only complaint, which was raised after holding of the examination was that the Consolidation Lekhpals also wanted to have their claim of promotion on the post of Rectangulator, considered. The only complaint, which was raised after holding of the examination was that the Consolidation Lekhpals also wanted to have their claim of promotion on the post of Rectangulator, considered. it is this exercise which delayed the promotion and nothing was brought to the notice of the State Government which may have impelled the cancellation of the results already declared in 2000. 8. Learned counsel for the State Government contends that keeping in view the fact that other units had not been extended the said benefit for the examination, and since the promotion has already been delayed for a considerable long time, it was decided as a policy matter to hold a fresh examination. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that as a matter of fact the petitioners, who are Chainmen and Flagmen, they were entitled for being considered to the post of Consolidation Lekhpal first for which earlier the matter had been taken up in the year 2001 and, therefore, the declaration of result followed by any promotion on the post of Rectangulator was not warranted. 9. Learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondents submits that as a matter of fact they are not opposing the claim of the promotion of the petitioner, but holding of the fresh examination and the consequential declaration of result should not be interfered with as rights of the respondents will be directly affected. He prays that the result of the proposed respondents be also declared and they be also considered for promotion. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that have emerged on pleadings, it is evident that there are no separate Rules for promotion on the post of Rectangulator except the Government Order dated 6.7.1985. In view of this, according to the said Government Order, the promotions were being processed and the impugned order dated 21.8.2007 also proceeds on the same premise. In such a situation, the respondents are obliged to hold examination and conduct the same and offer promotion to the successful candidates. The petitioners admittedly passed their examinations and it is not the case of the respondents that the examination was held in violation of the Government Order dated 6.7.1985. Once the result was declared and the petitioners were successful in the examination then there was no occasion to hold their fresh examination. The petitioners admittedly passed their examinations and it is not the case of the respondents that the examination was held in violation of the Government Order dated 6.7.1985. Once the result was declared and the petitioners were successful in the examination then there was no occasion to hold their fresh examination. Had it been the case where the examination itself was held in any mala fide manner, it was open to the State Government to scrutinise the same but to cancel the examination merely because 7 years have passed by itself does not appeal to reason. There is no rational basis for having cancelled the said examination and as a matter of fact on the same results, the claim of the petitioners could have been considered for promotion. The State Government ought to have held the examination for other Units as well and should have simultaneously considered the claim of the others. This was a course which ought to have been adopted by the State. In view of this, the impugned order dated 21.8.2007 is unsustainable and the consequential order dated 8.1.2008 insofar as it proceeds for a fresh examination of the petitioners is also unsustainable. 11. In view of the aforesaid position, the results of the petitioners as declared on 4.10.2000 is upheld. The claim of the petitioners shall be considered for promotion on the basis of their result which was declared on 4.10.2000 simultaneously along with all such candidates who are entitled for being considered for promotion. The results of the examination, which has been held on 15.1.2008, shall also be declared but their consideration shall be made only along with the petitioners in accordance with the guidelines fixed by the respondents pursuant to the Government Order dated 6.7.1985 and the subsequent Circulars issued by the Consolidation Commissioner. This exercise shall be completed within 3 months from today. The promotion order shall be issued simultaneously and all the consequential benefits shall be made available to the petitioners without prejudice to their rights of seniority and any other service benefits. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed