ORDER : VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J. 1. Aggrieved of the presumed cancellation of promotion accorded to the petitioner to the post of School Lecturer (History) vide order dated 13th September, 2015; the instant writ application has been instituted. 2. Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, submits that the petitioner, who entered service with the State-respondents on the post of Teacher Grade-III at Jodhpur vide order dated 31st December, 1985, was accorded promotion to the post of Teacher Grade-II vide order dated 14th June, 2013. On 13th September, 2015, the petitioner was accorded promotion on the post of School Lecturer (History), against the vacancy year 2015-16, in view of the recommendations made by DPC, that was convened on 24th July, 2015. According to the learned counsel, order of promotion dated 13th September, 2015, incorporated a condition for the incumbent to join at the place of posting on promotion, on 20th September, 2015, failing which it shall be presumed that the incumbent has forgone the promotion. Referring to the Clause 6 of the promotion order dated 13th September, 2015, it is pointed out that it was for the concerned Block Educational Officer (Secondary/Primary/Principal DIET/Head of the Establishment), to download a copy of the promotion order and relieve/allow to join the incumbent accorded promotion. Since the petitioner was not informed of his promotion vide order dated 13th September, 2015; he could not join at the place of posting in view of his promotion vide order dated 13th September, 2015. Therefore, the presumption raised by State-respondents that the petitioner has forgone his promotion, resulting into cancellation of promotion of the petitioner; is bad in the eye of law. 3. According to learned counsel, the promotion order dated 13th September, 2015, was not endorsed to the petitioner or any other candidate, who was accorded promotion along with the petitioner. Attention of this Court was invited to communication dated 3rd May, 2016, whereby the application of the petitioner was forwarded by District Educational Officer (Secondary), Jaipur-II, to Deputy Director Secondary, Bikaner, specifically pointing out the fact that the petitioner could not be made aware of the order of promotion dated 13th September, 2015, owing to non-availability of internet services, and thus, he was presented from joining at the place of posting on account of promotion accorded to him. 4. 4. The petitioner also addressed another application dated 15th May, 2016, to the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, to allow him to join in pursuance of the order dated 13th September, 2015, at the place where a vacancy was available in the School at Jaipur. 5. The application was endorsed and forwarded by the Headmaster admitting the fact that the information of promotion vide order dated 13th September, 2015, was not conveyed to the petitioner. 6. The fact that the school where the petitioner was posted, is located in a remote rural area where no internet facility is available, is also confirmed by the Headmaster of the School, on the application of the petitioner. 7. For the vacancy year 2016-17, vide orders dated 16th July, 2016, and 13th August, 2016, two employees junior to the petitioner, namely, Shri Kalyan Sahai and Hari Singh and similarly situated others even against vacancy year 2016-17, have been accorded promotion. But the petitioner was not accorded promotion even at that point of time, despite the order of promotion made in his favour dated 13th September, 2015. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for lapses on the part of the administration of the School and State-respondents for not providing adequate infrastructure. 8. Further, despite a specific stipulation made under Clause 6 of the promotion order dated 13th September, 2015, the concerned authorities did not inform the petitioner of his promotion made vide order dated 13th September, 2015. 9. Moreover, the similarly situated incumbents, namely, Nemichand and Shri Naval Kishore, have been accorded extension of time to join the place of posting owing to promotion made in the year 2015. Thus, in the case of the petitioner, a differential method has been adopted; which is violation of equality clause of the Constitution. 10. In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. Mr. Thus, in the case of the petitioner, a differential method has been adopted; which is violation of equality clause of the Constitution. 10. In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Government Counsel, while supporting the action of the State-respondents, asserted that the petitioner must have been in the knowledge of his promotion and the mere fact that the order of promotion dated 13th September, 2015, was not brought to his notice by concerned authorities, as mentioned under Clause 6 of the promotion order; would not confer any right in his favour for promotion after the petitioner has failed to comply with the direction specifically stipulated in the order of promotion to report for joining at the place of posting of promotion on 20th September, 2015. 11. However, learned counsel, fairly admitted the fact that internet services were not available in the school where the petitioner was posted. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the relevant materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at Bar. 13. Indisputably, the petitioner was not made aware of the promotion accorded to him on the post of School Lecturer (History) vide order dated 13th September, 2015; despite a specific stipulation under Clause 6 of the said order. The concerned authorities failed to download a copy of the promotion order of the petitioner and inform him to ensure relieving/joining. 14. In the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh : (2009) 14 SCC 793 , on a survey of earlier opinions, the Apex Court of the land, in no uncertain terms, observed that a discriminatory action of the Government is liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government, that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some authoritative principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. It will be relevant to take note of the text of para 28 of the opinion, which reads thus: “28. In view of the law as has been articulated in a large number of cases where this Court has observed that any discriminatory action on the part of the Government would be liable to be struck down. It will be relevant to take note of the text of para 28 of the opinion, which reads thus: “28. In view of the law as has been articulated in a large number of cases where this Court has observed that any discriminatory action on the part of the Government would be liable to be struck down. Hence, in this case, it would be totally unreasonable and irrational to deny the respondent the pensionary benefits under the scheme particularly when the appellants have failed to produce any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing by the respondent. In the absence of any such material it can well be inferred that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called by the appellants.” 15. Applying the principle of the opinion supra; the action of the State-respondents, a model employer, cannot be appreciated while treating two set of employees identically placed with differential treatment. 16. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid; the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. 17. The State-respondents are directed to allow joining to the petitioner as School Lecturer (History), as a consequence of his promotion order dated 13th September, 2015, at a vacant place, that may available with the State-respondents. 18. The petitioner would also be entitled to notional benefits as a consequence of promotion order dated 13th September, 2015. 19. Actual benefits shall be admissible from the date of joining. 20. The respondents would ensure compliance of this order as expeditiously as possible, however, in no case later than within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.