JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. Heard Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. These two appeals are preferred by the petitioners in WP (S/S) 167 of 2010 aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (S/S) No. 167 of 2010 and WP (S/S) No.505 of 2010 dated 07.06.2011. 3. The present case has had a chequred history. The petitioners, in both the writ petitions, were patwaries. In terms of Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue Ministerial (Registrar Kanoongo and Assistant Registrar Kanoongo) Service Rules, 1958 only patwaries, who had not completed 35 years of age on the first date of January of the year in which the nominations are made, were considered suitable for promotion. Rule 8 was amended in 1962; and the earlier stipulation of a candidate, being less than 35 years of age to be eligible for promotion, was deleted. However, without noticing the amendment made to the 1958 Rules in 1962, options were called only from those patwaries, who were less than 35 years of age, for being considered for appointment as Registrar Kanungo 4. While the petitioners in WP(S/S) No. 505 of 2010 rightly did not exercise their options as they were more than 35 years of age, the petitioners in WP(S/S) No. 167 of 2010 exercised their option, to be considered for the post of Registrar Kanungo, though they had also crossed 35 years of age by then. The petitioners in WP (S/S) No. 167 of 2010 filed WP (S/S) No. 870 of 2004, and a learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 16.02.2010, issued a writ of mandamus commanding the District Collector U.S. Nagar to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar Kanungo and, if found eligible as per the Amended Rule 8 of the 1958 Rules, to pass consequential orders of promotion within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. The learned Judge further observed that, in the event the petitioners are found to be senior to the persons who had been promoted earlier, they should accordingly be placed above the junior persons. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in WP (S/S) No. 870 of 2004 dated 16.02.2010, certain patwaries sought leave to file an appeal, against the said order, in SPA No. 22 of 2010. A Division Bench of this Court, in its order dated 26.03.2010, observed that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petitioners in WP (S/S) No. 870 of 2004 had been directed to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar Kanungo, did not necessitate interference. The Division Bench observed that, with regards inter-se seniority between the appellants and the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.870 of 2004, the respondents should first consider the suitability of the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.870 of 2004 in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge; and thereupon, if they are found suitable, their inter-se seniority, as against the appellants, shall be determined under the prevalent statutory rules. 6. While matters stood thus, the official respondents issued circular dated 19.03.2010 calling for options from 33 patwaries and 8 lekhpals for promotion to the post of Registrar Kanungo. This circular dated 19.03.2010 was subjected to challenge, by the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.870 of 2004, by way of WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010 contending that, in view of the order of the learned Single Judge in WP (S/S) No. 870 of 2004 dated 16.02.2010, it is they who alone should be considered for promotion; and options should not have been invited from other eligible patwaries and lekhpals. An interim order was passed in the said writ petition directing that the circular dated 19.03.2010 should not be given effect to. Consequently, the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.870 of 2004 were promoted vide order dated 24.04.2010. However, the order of promotion stipulated that their promotion would be subject to the result of WP (S/S) No. 167 of 2010. An interim order was passed in the said writ petition directing that the circular dated 19.03.2010 should not be given effect to. Consequently, the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.870 of 2004 were promoted vide order dated 24.04.2010. However, the order of promotion stipulated that their promotion would be subject to the result of WP (S/S) No. 167 of 2010. Thereafter, WP (S/S) No.505 of 2010 was filed by certain patwaries seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 24.04.2010 (whereby the petitioners in WP (S/S) No. 167 of 2010 were promoted); and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider their case for promotion, to the post of Registrar Kanungo, in accordance with the 1958 Rules as amended by the Notification dated 17.12.1962. Both these writ petitions were disposed of by the common order under appeal. 7. In so far as WP (S/S) No. 167 of 2010 is concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that the contention, of the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010, that the benefit, of lifting of the embargo of 35 years, would apply only in their case could not be accepted; the administrative authorities, while seeking options from patwaries, were ignorant of the fact that the embargo of 35 years stood repealed in the year 1962; relying upon the unamended Rules, the authorities had called for options from those patwaries who where less than 35 years of age; though the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010 were also above 35 years of age, and had not been asked to exercise their options, they had, on their own volition, exercised their options; there was no occasion, for those who had crossed the age of 35 years, to exercise their options in terms of the notification issued by the authorities concerned; exercise of options by certain patwaries, including the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010, was of no consequence; after the 1962 Rules the restriction, on options being called only from patwaries who were less than 35 years of age, was no longer in force; there was nothing in law which stopped all patwaries from exercising their options, and for all of them to be considered; calling for options from all eligible patwaries, vide circular dated 19.03.2010, was in accordance with law; and WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010 was liable to be dismissed. 8. 8. In so far as WP (S/S) No. 505 of 2010 is concerned, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition to the extent that there was no embargo in the 1958 Rules to deny patwaries, beyond the age of 35 years, the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Registrar Kanungo. The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to call for options from all eligible candidates, including the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.505 of 2010, irrespective of their age. 9. The learned Single Judge further held that, since promotion to the post of Registrar Kanungo from amongst patwaries would depend upon seniority subject to rejection of the unfit, the seniority list shall be taken into consideration while making these promotions; and if, after calling for options, the respondents find that the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.505 of 2010 were fit for promotion to the post of Registrar Kanungo they should be promoted to the post of Registrar Kanoongo from the date their juniors were promoted to the said post 10. As noted hereinabove, both these appeals have been preferred, against the order of the learned Single Judge, only by the petitioners in WP (S/S) No. 167 of 2010, and not by the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.505 of 2010. In so far as the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.505 of 2010 are concerned, the order of the learned Single Judge has attained finality. While the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.505 of 2010 had, no doubt, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 24.04.2010, promoting the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010 as Registrar Kanungo, the learned Single Judge has not set aside the said order of promotion dated 24.04.2010 in the order under appeal. As the learned Single Judge has not interfered with the said order of promotion, the promotion of the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010, as Registrar Kanungo vide proceedings dated 24.04.2010, continues to remain in force. 11. As the learned Single Judge has not interfered with the said order of promotion, the promotion of the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010, as Registrar Kanungo vide proceedings dated 24.04.2010, continues to remain in force. 11. The apprehensions expressed by Shri V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010, is that, since the order of promotion dated 24.04.2010 makes the promotion of the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010 subject to the result of the said writ petition, dismissal of the said writ petition may be construed, by the authorities, as their promotions having been set aside by this Court. This apprehension, expressed on behalf of the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010, is wholly unfounded. The challenge made by the petitioners to the circular dated 19.03.2010, whereby options were called for from 33 patwaries and 8 lekhpals, was rejected by the learned Single Judge; and, consequently, all those 33 patwaries and 8 lekhpals were entitled to execute their options, and were also eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Registrar Kanungo. Further, in terms of the order under appeal, all those patwaries/ lekhpals, who were promoted as Registrar Kanungo, were entitled to have their seniority, as Registrar Kanungo, determined on the basis of their seniority as patwaries. 12. The mere fact that the petitioners in WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010 were promoted earlier, would not confer on them any right to claim that they were seniors to those who were promoted as Registrar Kanungo later, if the latter promotees were senior to them as patwaries. 13. Subject to the clarification, that dismissal of WP (S/S) No.167 of 2010 by the order under appeal did not necessitate any inference that the order of promotion dated 24.04.2010 had been set aside and the appellants’ promotion order dated 24.04.2010 would continue to remain in force, both the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.