JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondent Board may be directed to consider the petitioner for deemed promotion to the post of Sr. Law Officer from the date when he became eligible to the said post i.e., the July, 2004 Or The respondent be directed to treat the petitioner promoted as Sr. Law Officer from the year 2004 for the purpose of counting experience for future promotions. (ii) That the respondent Board may be further directed to consider the petitioner for regular promotion to the post of Sr. Law Officer from 1.12.2010 from which date he is performing/discharging the duties of said post. (iii) That the petitioner may also be held entitled to arrears of salary and consequential benefits with interest notionally from July, 2004 to November, 2010 and actually from December, 2010 till date.” 2. When the matter was heard on 16.8.2018, the following order was passed:- “Heard for some time. Before any further order is passed, respondent-Board is directed to produce the original record pertaining to the promotions, which were effected vide office order dated 27th July, 2004 (Annexure P-2) along with the reasons, if any, as to why the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Senior Personal Officer Legal (Adhoc)/Senior Law Officer (Adhoc) at that stage. List on 23d August, 2018. Copy dasti.” 3. Today the original record pertaining to the promotions which took effect in the year 2004, has been made available by the respondent-Board, perusal of which demonstrates that against 02 available vacancies of Senior Law Officer, 05 incumbents were considered, which also included the petitioner. The name of the petitioner is at Sr. No. 3 as per his seniority in the proceedings of promotion. 4. Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel on the basis of the record submits that in the year 2004 the senior-most 02 incumbents were promoted against the available 02 vacancies and as the petitioner was at Sr. No. 3 in seniority, therefore, he could not be promoted. Mr. No. 3 as per his seniority in the proceedings of promotion. 4. Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel on the basis of the record submits that in the year 2004 the senior-most 02 incumbents were promoted against the available 02 vacancies and as the petitioner was at Sr. No. 3 in seniority, therefore, he could not be promoted. Mr. Sood further submits that at the relevant time, there were no Rules governing Recruitment or Promotion to Class-I and Class-II posts in Bhakra Beas Management Board ( in short ‘BBMB’) which included the post of Senior Law Officer, therefore, promotions were made on the basis of the seniority and the quota of the participating States. 5. Mr. Sood, further submits that promotions in the year 2004 were done on the strength of administrative orders, as at that time there were no R&P Rules, but as now, R&P Rules to the post in issue stand framed, which are statutory in nature, therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim right of promotion by circumventing the Rules, which stand published in the Gazette of India on 26th June, 2015. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as also the records which have been made available in the Court today, it is evident that in the year 2004, when Sh. Ram Paul and Ms. Neeru Chadha were promoted against the posts of Senior Law Officer, they were so promoted on the strength of their seniority by way of administrative orders, in the absence of there being any promotion Rules, governing promotion to the post in issue. Record also demonstrates that one post of Senior Law Officer became available in the respondent-Board on the superannuation of one Sh. D.L.Sharma, who retired on 30.11.2010. It is not in dispute that since then it is the petitioner, who is performing the duties of the post in issue, though he has not been formally promoted to the said post. In this background, Mr. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that if not from the year 2004, then at least, the petitioner should be promoted against the post of Senior Law Officer from December, 2012, as he is performing the duties of the said post since then. 7. In this background, Mr. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that if not from the year 2004, then at least, the petitioner should be promoted against the post of Senior Law Officer from December, 2012, as he is performing the duties of the said post since then. 7. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that when in the year 2004 promotions were made to the post of Senior Law Officer, the petitioner was there in the zone of consideration, but he was not promoted, as there were persons senior to him who were promoted to the posts in issue by an administrative order. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner since 1.12.2010 is performing the duties of Senior Law Officer, as is evident from communications which stand appended with the petition which have not been so refuted by the respondent-Board. It is also not in dispute that the Statutory Rules have come into force after their publication in the Gazette of India only in the year 2015. Averments made in para-12 of the petition that the petitioner is discharging the responsibilities of Senior Law Officer since 1.12.2010 have not been specifically denied by the respondent- Board in its reply. From the above, it is clear that the factum of petitioner performing the duties of Senior Law Officer since 1.12.2010 is not in dispute. That being so, it is not understood as to why respondent-Board did not consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Law Officer either in December, 2012 or within some reasonable time thereafter. When respondent-Board has got executed the work of Senior Law Officer from the petitioner since 1.12.2010, it cannot be the case of respondent-Board that the petitioner is not eligible/competent to perform the duties of the said post. The only inference which can be drawn is that as the work of the office in issue was being discharged by the petitioner without being formally promoted, respondent-Board allowed the status quo to continue as the same was in its interest. 8. The only inference which can be drawn is that as the work of the office in issue was being discharged by the petitioner without being formally promoted, respondent-Board allowed the status quo to continue as the same was in its interest. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been performing the duties against the post of Senior Law Officer since 1.12.2010, it will be in the interest of justice in case respondent-Board considers the petitioner for promoting him against the said post w.e.f. December, 2010, provided that he was otherwise not suffering from any ineligibility for promotion to the post in issue as on 1.12.2010. Ordered accordingly. 9. Respondent-Board shall initiate proceedings for promotion of the petitioner against the post of Senior Law Officer as per the procedure which was in vogue as on 1.12.2010 and complete the same within a period of six weeks from today. This shall be done after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is not suffering from any ineligibility for being promoted to the post of Senior Law Officer as on 1.12.2010, then necessary orders in this regard shall also be passed by the respondent- Board within the same period with all consequential benefits. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.