Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal") were by the appeal preferred by the private respondents was allowed with the direction to the official respondents to convene review Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter to be referred as "the DPC") meetings for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against the vacancy for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. 2. The appeal was preferred to challenge recommendation of D.P.C. meeting held on 9.2.2004. It was with a further prayer that provisional list dated 24.4.1999 should be first finalized and consideration of the candidature for promotion may be made thereupon. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 89 posts of Assistant Engineer were up-graded to the posts of Executive Engineer vide the order dated 13.12.2002. On creation of those posts, the private respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 176/2003. This was to challenge benefit of reservation to the candidates for promotion to the afore-said vacancies for the year of 2002-03 and 2003-04. Similar controversy came up before the High Court, Principle Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 376/2003 (Rajeev Choudhary & Ors. vs. State & Ors.). The writ petition of Rajeev Choudhary was thereafter dismissed vide the judgment dt. 19.9.2003 and accordingly, the writ petition filed by one of the private respondents herein was also dismissed. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, an appeal was preferred therein even the ground as was raised in the appeal before the Tribunal though the new ground was taken for the first time before the Hon'ble Division Bench in the Special Appeal and not before the learned Single Judge. The facts, however, remain that the issue involved in the present matter is sub judice now before the Hon'ble Division Bench. 4. Apart from the aforesaid, the facts on merit are that for the year 2002-03, 35 vacancies were existing and all were reserved for SC and ST candidates. Since no candidate of the reserve category was found eligible, these vacancies were carry forward to the year 2003-04 as per the Notification dated 10.10.2002. 4. Apart from the aforesaid, the facts on merit are that for the year 2002-03, 35 vacancies were existing and all were reserved for SC and ST candidates. Since no candidate of the reserve category was found eligible, these vacancies were carry forward to the year 2003-04 as per the Notification dated 10.10.2002. So far as creation of 89 vacancies to the post of Executive Engineer is concerned, it was vide the order dated 13.12.2002, thus to be counted as vacancies for the year 2003-04 in view of the Rule 50 of R.S.R. Even as per service rules, determination of vacancies have to be made as on 1st April of the year concerned, thus while determining the vacancies of year 2002-03, one cannot anticipate up-gradation of post in the month of December, 2002 so as to include those vacancies for the year 2002-03. Accordingly, while determining the vacancies of the year 2003-04, 89 vacancies were taken note of as existing on 1st April, 2003. This is apart from 60 vacancies of the year 2003-04, accordingly 184 vacancies came up for promotion in the year 2003-04 i.e. 35 vacancies of reserve caste candidate of the year 2002-03 as it remained unfilled, 89 posts so upgraded vide the order dated 13.12.2002 and 60 vacancies of the year 2003-04. 5. To support the arguments, a reference of the clarification made by the Department of Personnel (hereinafter to be referred as "the DOP") dated 7.10.2003 has been made apart from the opinion of the said department to treat 89 posts of Executive Engineer to be for the year 2003-04. The respondents, accordingly held meeting of D.P.C. thereupon but the Tribunal erroneously held that 89 posts so upgraded should be treated to be vacancies of the year 2002-03 and consideration for promotion be made accordingly by determining the zone of consideration against those vacancies. If the aforesaid is done, the petitioners are ousted from the benefit of promotion but then the order of promotion of the petitioners was not challenged before the Tribunal, thus a direction to nullify promotion could not have been issued by the Tribunal. This is apart from the fact that the appeal was preferred without impleading all those, who may be affected by the outcome of the order of Tribunal. Only few candidates were arrayed as respondents in the representative capacity. This is apart from the fact that the appeal was preferred without impleading all those, who may be affected by the outcome of the order of Tribunal. Only few candidates were arrayed as respondents in the representative capacity. Thus, for the aforesaid reason also, the order of Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 6. The Tribunal further erred in not considering the fact that the controversy pursuant to the Notification dated 7.4.2003 providing extended zone of consideration for reserve caste candidates is already pending for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench in one of the appeals and therein even an interim order exists against the promotion. Thus, for all these reasons, the impugned order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. A reference of the judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. N.Y. Apte & Ors. reported in (1998) 6 SCC 741 has been made to show that challenge to the virus of the rules laying down the promotion policy should not be entertained in the hands of a candidate whose chances of promotion are not affected. A reference of judgment in the case of Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 707 has also been made. Therein, it was held that non-impleadment of the appointees is fatal and their appointments cannot be cancelled in absence of them. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents have supported the impugned order of the Tribunal. 8. It is submitted that consideration of 89 vacancies for the year 2003-04 was based on erroneous interpretation of rules by the respondents moreso when 89 posts were upgraded vide the Notification dt. 13.12.2002, thus to be considered vacancies of the said year and not of the next year. In fact, when D.P.C. proceedings was initiated, 89 posts were taken for the year 2002-03 only, which is clearly coming out from the check list for D.P.C. meetings at Annex.R/7/6 therein 124 vacancies were determined for the year 2002-03 i.e. 35 reserve vacancies and 89 upgraded posts. The problem came when minutes were prepared by the Member Secretary/Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department vide the Annex.R/7/7. Referring the up gradation of post vide the order dated 13.12.2003 instead of 13.12.2002 and accordingly, by making a mention of wrong year of up gradation, 89 vacancies were treated for the year 2003-04. The problem came when minutes were prepared by the Member Secretary/Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department vide the Annex.R/7/7. Referring the up gradation of post vide the order dated 13.12.2003 instead of 13.12.2002 and accordingly, by making a mention of wrong year of up gradation, 89 vacancies were treated for the year 2003-04. If 89 vacancies are created in the year 2003 i.e. vide the order dated 13.12.2003 (wrongly mentioned, as correct date is 13.12.2002) then there is nothing wrong in the action of the official respondents but 89 posts were created vide the order dt.13.12.2002 and not 13.12.2003, which was then either escaped from notice of the respondents or they deliberately referred wrong date as 13.12.2003 while preparing the minutes for D.P.C. at Annex. R/7/7. 9. Perusal of the aforesaid document shows lapse committed by the respondents. The petition of the mistake about the year of up-gradation was committed even while issuing letter dated 19.9.2003 at Annex. R/7/8, therein also, the order of up-gradation is taken as 13.12.2003 instead 13.12.2002. Hence as against the Check list, the respondents considering up-gradation of 89 posts vide the order dated 13.12.2003 reckoned those vacancies for the aforesaid year. The Tribunal minutely examined the aforesaid and considered Rule 9 of the Rules and even instructions of the D.P.C., rightly came to the conclusion that if up-gradation of 89 posts took place vide the order dated 13.12.2000 then those vacancies have to be treated as vacancies of the aforesaid year and not for the year 2003-04. This is moreso when D.P.C. meeting took place much subsequent to up-gradation of 89 posts. 10. Learned counsel further submits that they had challenged recommendation of D.P.C. as it was without finalizing provisional seniority list before making recommendation for promotion, accordingly the appeal was allowed with the directions as prayed for. Since recommendation of the D.P.C. itself is being nullified for the reasons assigned in the impugned order, it gets its consequential effect on the subsequent event of promotion. 11. So far as the issue of non-impleadment of all the candidates so promoted is concerned, it is submitted that impleadment of few candidates in the representative capacity is sufficient which was done by the private respondents while maintaining appeal. A reference of the judgment in the case of Diwakar Shrivastava & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 1984 (Suppl.) SCC 214 has been given. A reference of the judgment in the case of Diwakar Shrivastava & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 1984 (Suppl.) SCC 214 has been given. A further reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.S. Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 3299/2011 dated 18.4.2011 has been made therein it is held that while challenging the selection process, impleadment of few successful candidate in representative capacity is necessary and according to the petitioners, two such candidates were impleaded as a party respondents in the appeal in representative capacity. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168 . The Hon'ble Apex Court took similar view even in the case of State of Uttaranchal & Anr. vs. Madan Mohan Joshi & Ors. reported in (2008) 6 SCC 797 . Referring the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted that when candidates affected by outcome of the appeal were impleaded in representative capacity then the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-impleadment of all affected persons as a party is not tenable 12. So far as filing of special appeal by one of the private respondents is concerned, it is submitted that writ petition was not filed on the issue involved herein and accordingly, the writ petition was decided on different issues. While maintaining appeal, one of the private respondents even took a ground regarding applicability of notification providing extended zone of consideration. However, the said issue was not before the learned Single Judge. Hence, merely by taking a new issue for the first time while maintaining special appeal, cannot preclude all respondents to pursue their appeal before the Tribunal. This is moreso when the writ petition preferred before the High Court was all together on different facts and grounds. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents further made a reference to the Circular issued by the Department Promotion Committee to show that if the vacancies are created before the meeting of D.P.C., it has to be included as the vacancies of the year in which it has been created. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order, which may not be interfered. 14. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order, which may not be interfered. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the State Government submits that they have considered 89 vacancies for the year 2003-04 pursuant to the opinion of the Department of Personnel. It was, however, admitted that at many places, date of up-gradation of 89 posts has been mentioned as 13.12.2003 in place of 13.12.2002 and accordingly, year of up-gradation of posts was wrongly referred for determination of vacancies for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. It was further admitted that while check list for D.P.C. was prepared, 89 vacancies were taken for the year 2002-03. It is, accordingly submitted that this Court may take appropriate view and official respondents will act accordingly. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 16. The fact not in dispute is that 89 vacancies were upgraded to the post of Executive Engineer vide the order dated 13.12.2002. Now mute question for consideration is as to whether it is to be considered as vacancies for the year 2002-03 or 2003-04 when meeting of the D.P.C. took place on 9.2.2004. A further question is as to whether promotion can be recommended by the D.P.C. without finalization of provisional seniority list and accordingly, a direc-tion can be given to first finalize the seniority list and then to make promotion. 17. So far as the first issue pertaining to determination of vacancies for the particular year is concerned, the circular of the D.O.P. would be relevant, which concerned, the circular of the D.O.P. would be relevant, which has been relied upon by learned counsel for both the parties. The Department of Personnel clarified certain doubts vide the Circular dated 18.2.1984. It is provided that Appointing Authority may determine vacancies on 1st April or at the earliest thereafter any time during the financial year. The newly created post, if any, included in the budget or as may have been agreed by the Financial Department up to the date of determination of vacancies would be taken as vacancy of the said year and for that purpose, vacancy shall be determined only once in a year. Relevant paras of the Circular dated 18.2.1984 are quoted hereunder for ready reference: "Circular No. F.7(2)DOP/A-II/81 dt. Relevant paras of the Circular dated 18.2.1984 are quoted hereunder for ready reference: "Circular No. F.7(2)DOP/A-II/81 dt. 18.2.1984 (1) Whether the Appointing Authorities can determine the vacancies even after 1st April of the year. (2) Where vacancies occurring during the year, besides including vacancies due to retirement could include posts created during the financial year and lien vacancies due to long term deputation. (3) Whether vacancies can be determined more than once in a year. 3. Points raised by various Appointing Authorities have been considered by the Government and these are clarified as under:- (1) The Appointing Authority may determine vacancies on 1st April or at the earliest thereafter any time during the financial year. (2)(a) Clear vacancies of the Department as these exist on 1st April of the year of selection irrespective of the adhoc or urgent temporary appointments made against such vacancies. (b) Newly created posts, if any, included in the Budge or as may have been agreed by the Finance Department upto the date the vacancies are determined. (c) Vacancies occurring on account of retirement during the year. (d) Vacancies, which shall occur consequent promotion to higher posts against clear vacancies as exist 1st April of the year. (e) Deputation posts exceeding one year (only those deputation posts would be taken in which persons have already proceed on deputation on the date of determination of vacancies. (f) Long leave vacancies exceed a period of one year. (3) Vacancies shall be determined only once a year. Vacancies occurring after the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting has been held shall be treated as the vacancies of the next year variation in the vacancies that may crop up between the date of requisitioning the Departmental Promotional Committee meeting and the date of Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held shall be taken into account at the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting. Note:-Attach list of persons due to whom consequential vacancies have occurred with likely period of vacancies (Calculation chart with date of occurrence of vacancy). (e) Anticipated vacancies during the year (Annexure (c). (i) Newly Sanctioned post during the year (ii) included in the budget. (ii) As agreed to by the finance department. (f) Total vacancies for the year of selected (c+d+e)." 18. (e) Anticipated vacancies during the year (Annexure (c). (i) Newly Sanctioned post during the year (ii) included in the budget. (ii) As agreed to by the finance department. (f) Total vacancies for the year of selected (c+d+e)." 18. The same issue was reiterated by the Department of Personnel in its Circular dated 4.6.2008 wherein newly created post is directed to be counted to be vacancy of the same year if created before the meeting of the D.P.C. Para 7.5 of the said circular is quoted hereunder for ready reference: ^^7-5 iwjs foRrh; o"kZ esa okLrfod :i ls miyC/k gks jgh fjfDr;ka x.kuk ;ksX; gksxh ftuesa fuEu in Hkh lfEefyr gksaxs& 7-5-1 ftu inksa ij vLFkkbZ@vko';d inksUufr;ka dj nh gks os in Hkh foHkkxh; inksUufr lfefr vk;kstu gsrq x.kuk ;ksX; gksaxsA 7-5-2- uohu in tks foHkkxh; inksUufr lfefr dh cSBd ds vk;kstu ls iwoZ l`ftr gksrs gS vFkok tks ctV esa lfEefyr fd;s x;s gks ;k ftuds fy, ml frfFk dks tcfd fjfDr;ksa ds vo/kkj.k fd;k tk;s] foRr foHkkx }kjk lgefr ns nh xbZ gksA** 19. Perusal of the aforesaid para leaves no room for doubt that if the posts were upgraded vide the order dated 13.12.2002 and D.P.C. meeting took place on 9.2.2004 then the vacancies so upgraded has to be taken as vacancies for the year 2002-03 and cannot be for the year 2003-04. The aforesaid fact is even supported by the document of the official respondents themselves. If the check list of the promotion is looked into at Annex. R/7/6 therein after considering 89 posts to be of year 2002-03, total vacancies were determined as 124 as for the aforesaid year, 35 other vacancies were existing. It seems that mistake was subsequently committed by the respondents by referring the order of up-gradation of post to be of 13.12.2003 instead of 13.12.2002 as is clearly coming out from Annex. R/7/7 and Annex. R/7/8. Hence, apparent reasons for commissioning of mistake is even coming out from the record of the respondents themselves. It seems that mistake was subsequently committed by the respondents by referring the order of up-gradation of post to be of 13.12.2003 instead of 13.12.2002 as is clearly coming out from Annex. R/7/7 and Annex. R/7/8. Hence, apparent reasons for commissioning of mistake is even coming out from the record of the respondents themselves. This is moreso when entire original record was called for perusal of this court to look into as to whether posts were created even before initiation of action for holding D.P.C. meeting and is found from the record that up-gradation of 89 posts took place on 13.12.2002 i.e. much prior to even initiation of meeting of D.P.C. Thus, as per the Circular of Department of Personnel, 89 upgraded posts should have been taken as vacancies for the year 2002-03 thus there is apparent mistake in the action of official respondents to treat 89 vacancies to be of year 2003-04. It is no doubt true that the vacancies are to be determined on 1st April of the year but then it is provided to count anticipated vacancies and therefore, only D.O.P. rightly issued a circular to treat newly created posts as the vacancies of same year if D.P.C. meeting is initiated subsequent to it because existence of the vacancies as on 1st April is not a condition under the Rule and if that would have been so then the department could not have considered anticipated vacancies arising out of retirement, promotion or creation of new post during that year after 1st April. 20. In the light of the discussions made above, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to treat 89 upgraded posts to be vacancies for the year 2003-04 cannot be accepted. Thus is moreso when it is admittedly created in the vacancy year of 2002-03. In the light of the discussion made above and in reference of the judgment cited and considered by the Tribunal, I do not find any error in the impugned order to hold that 89 upgraded post vacancies to be vacancies for the year 2002-03. 21. Now comes to the issue as to whether non-impleadment of petitioner as a party respondents is fatal for maintaining an appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners made reference of the judgment in the case of Grijesh Shrivastava & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (supra). 22. 21. Now comes to the issue as to whether non-impleadment of petitioner as a party respondents is fatal for maintaining an appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners made reference of the judgment in the case of Grijesh Shrivastava & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (supra). 22. I have considered the aforesaid judgment and find that it was matter where appointments were challenged through a Public Interest Litigation. Therein it was held that matter regarding reservation can be taken in service dispute and not by way of Public Interest Litigation. Taking aforesaid to be basis apart from non-impleadment of the appellant as they were in service for more than three years by that time, cancellation of their appointment was set aside. The case in hand is not of that nature inasmuch as the dispute has been raised by maintaining an appeal before the Tribunal and that too by impleading candidates in representative capacity to agitate the matter. Thus, it is not a case where none of the affected persons were impleaded as a party respondents to the appeal. 23. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Diwakar Shrivastava & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (supra) apart from the judgment of State of Uttaranchal & Anr. vs. Madan Mohan Joshi & Ors. (supra), Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (supra) and J.S. Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra), the impleadment of few candidates in the representative capacity is sufficient though in all those cases, none of the affected persons was impleaded as a party respondents. But the Hon'ble Apex Court held that candidates should have been impleaded as a party respondents in representative capacity to maintain the litigation, which is the case in hand. 24. In the light of the aforesaid, second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not found worth acceptance. 25. Herein a further question comes as to whether private respondents were having locus standi to challenge the recommendation of D.P.C. 26. The aforesaid issue is considered by me in reference of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. N.Y. Apte & Ors. (supra). 25. Herein a further question comes as to whether private respondents were having locus standi to challenge the recommendation of D.P.C. 26. The aforesaid issue is considered by me in reference of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. N.Y. Apte & Ors. (supra). If the facts of this case are taken into consideration, the rights of the respondents are affected as persons junior to them have been given promotion by virtue of recommendation of D.P.C. challenged before the Tribunal, thus non-petitioners are affected parties. It is not a case were virus of the promotion policy was challenged not affecting chance of promotion of the candidate. The case in hand in having all together different facts then considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. N.Y. Apte & Ors. (supra). Hence, even aforesaid judgment has no application to the present matter and thereby it cannot be said that petitioners had no locus standi to maintain appeal. 27. The next issue is as to whether the impugned order can now sustain in the light of the fact that one of the respondents had earlier filed a writ petition, resulting in dismissal and thereupon while maintaining appeal, a new issue regarding grant of extended zone of consideration to the reserve caste candidate has been challenged. It has been admitted by the petitioners that while writ petition was maintained by one of the non-petitioners, the issue pertaining to circular/order providing extended zone was not under challenge and even no prayer was made to set aside the notification dated 7.4.2003. In fact, the writ petition was all together on different issue then the aforesaid ground raised in the special appeal. Though while maintaining appeal by one of the respondents, a ground in reference to the extended zone for consideration may have been taken but it does not take away the right of the non-petitioners to pursue their appeal on the grounds taken therein because when the writ petition was not involving any of the issues raised in the appeal before the Tribunal and no prayer was made akin to the prayer made in appeal, taking ground at the stage of special appeal, cannot be said to be fatal to pursue appeal before the Tribunal moreso when it was filed earlier to special appeal. In fact, a new ground cannot be raised at the stage of appeal and if raised without a prayer as a consequence thereof, remains of no consequence and at least, it cannot defeat the litigation taken up by those who were not party to the earlier litigation before the High Court. 28. Accordingly, I am not impressed by the aforesaid issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and as such answered in negative. 29. The fact now remains for consideration is that the order of promotion has not been challenged or quashed by the Tribunal then what would be the consequence of the order passed by the Tribunal. 30. Perusal of the prayer in the appeal shows that action of the official respondents was challenged on the ground that before making promotions, provisional seniority list was not finalized and secondly, the challenge was to the recommendation of the D.P.C. on account of wrong determination of vacancies. 31. It has not been disputed by any of the counsel that seniority list was not finalized, which was provisionally issued in the year 1999. Even during the course of arguments of this petition, a challenge to the direction given by the Tribunal for finalization of seniority list has not been made. In the background aforesaid, the official respondents are under an obligation to first finalize the seniority list and then to make promotions. In the aforesaid eventuality, the official respondents have to undertake the exercise of D.P.C. afresh after finalizing seniority list. Obviously, the consequence has to follow, which effects even the action of the passing of the order of promotion. 32. The issue further remains that if the recommendation of D.P.C. has been challenged and is found to be improper on account of wrong determination of vacancies for the D.P.C. and if challenge has sustained consequence has to follow, which exists in the present matter thereby it was not necessary to challenge the consequential order of promotion while challenging the recommendation of D.P.C. on the ground of incorrect determination of vacancies. 33. In the light of the discussions made above, even the last argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not found worth acceptance. 34. In the result of the aforesaid, this writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed as I do not find any error in the impugned order. 35. The cost is made easy.