JUDGMENT : 1. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the final seniority list of Addl. Directors published as on 1.4.2018, name of petitioner stands at S.No.1 in the seniority list. As per Rajasthan Animal Husbandary Service Rules, 1963, the post of Director is to be filled by way of 100% promotion. It is the highest post in the service and there is only one post of Director in the cadre. However, the respondent has included the post of Chief Executive Officer of Rajasthan Livestock Development Board to be also that of Director, although the said post of CEO has not been ex-cadred under the said rules of 1963. It is submitted that the ex-cadre post cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of promotion on regular basis by DPC under the rules of 1963 as the said post is not part of the rules. 2. It is further submitted that even if for arguments sake, said post is included as total strength of two post for Directors, then too the posts could not have been filled from ST Category and the respondent no.5 could not have been promoted out of turn as even in accordance with the L-shape roster published by State Government. Since it is the second recruitment year of promotion, the post would be treated as unreserved post and not a reserved post. 3. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner had filed SBCW Pet. No.22328/2018 before this court but the respondent no.5 appeared as a caveator and sought time, but in between that, the State Government issued an order dated 29.9.2018 and therefore, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 4.10.2018 as having become infructuous. The petitioner has, therefore, again challenged the order and submits that the respondent no.5 is wholly ineligible to hold the post as he is much junior to the petitioner and there are five other persons in between those who have also left out. 4. Learned counsel appears for the Caveator and while copy of writ petition was made available to him on 9.10.2018 and opportunity was given to him, he has not filed reply nor he has filed counter affidavit. He has submitted that interlocutory order should not be passed at this stage as it amounts to attain finality. 5. 4. Learned counsel appears for the Caveator and while copy of writ petition was made available to him on 9.10.2018 and opportunity was given to him, he has not filed reply nor he has filed counter affidavit. He has submitted that interlocutory order should not be passed at this stage as it amounts to attain finality. 5. He has replied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of UP and ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki and ors. reported in (2009) 17 SCC 555 . 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Prima facie it is apparent that the DPC has wrongly included the post of CEO as ex-cadre post as same has not been included in the schedule appended to the rules of 1963. The post of Director is required to be filled in accordance with the rules of 1963 while the post of CEO which has been declared as equivalent to Director and is to be made for a separate Board i.e. Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Development Board which is another Board having a separate setup and promotion, two posts cannot be clubbed together under the rules of 1963. The petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition assailing the proceedings being conducted by DPC. However, the said writ petition was rendered infructuous as the Government proceeded to pass an order in between. It is also prima facie seen that even if two posts are considered, recruitment conducted after 2010 is only third time i.e. 2015 and thereafter 2018 and thus as per L-shape roster, the post has to be treated as unreserved second post. In the circumstances, the DPC proceeded treating the second post as reserved post is not made out. 8. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed for declaring the order of promotion dated 29.9.2018 as null and void and with prayer to reconvene the DPC while the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that final relief cannot be granted at this stage since prima facie I find that the action of the respondents for not granting promotion to the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of rules. The respondent cannot be allowed to work on the post of Director. The respondent cannot be allowed to work on the post of Director. In view thereof, while issuing notice to the State Government, directing them to file reply within two weeks henceforth, meanwhile respondent no.5 shall be restrained to perform duty on the post of Director, Animal Husbandry Development Board till further orders.