JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, J.C. to A.A.G. for the State of Jharkhand. 2. Petitioners preferred this writ petition for direction to promote the petitioners to Class III post. The petitioner No. 1 is working as a Peon in the Block Office at Raidhi and petitioner No. 2 is working as Daftari in Sub-Divisional office, Gumla. Both are Class IV employees. 3. Mr. Manish Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that in view of circular dated 16.9.1992, wherein there is a provision that 50% of Class III posts are to be filled from Class IV employees and 50% by direct examination, the Deputy Commissioner conducted examination for promotion to the post of Class III, in which the petitioners were declared successful. He submits that prior to conducting that examination, the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla has sought guidelines from the Government and the Government by a letter, at Annexure 3 to the writ application, in-formed the Deputy Commissioner about the circular dated 16.9.1992. Further, by letter dated 22.12.2004, the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, was informed by the Secretary – cum - Commissioner that the Deputy- Commissioner himself is competent to take a decision with regard to con-ducting examination for promotion to the post of Class III. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent State has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 5, wherein it has been stated that the examination in question has been cancelled. He draws the attention of this Court to Order dated 02.02.2009 at Annexure A to the counter affidavit and submits that by this order, representation of one Bhushan Kumar has been rejected only and so far the examination is concerned, it is not cancelled and stand of the respondent is not correct in this regard. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioners that it is stated in the counter affidavit that a Rule came into effect in the year 2010, by which it has been decided that examination for promotion to the Class III post will be conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, but, as it came into effect in the year 2010, it cannot be implemented retrospectively unless the Statues say so. He further submits that in Khunti district examination was con-ducted for promotion by the Deputy Commissioner and in that district the persons, who have passed the examination, have been promoted to Class III post and therefore, the State cannot be allowed to discriminate among its employees. 4. Per contra, Mr. Shahi, appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand, submits that the Government has come forward with a new Rule in the year 2010, wherein it has been decided that promotion to Class III post will be conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner of Gumla have cancelled the examination of the petitioners and the Deputy Commissioner of Khunti have not cancelled such examination and thus, the case of the petitioners are on different footing. He further submits that the panel with respect to the petitioners was in force only for one year. 5. In view of the above, this Court finds that the examination for pro-motion with respect to the petitioners was conducted on 12.3.2008 in which the petitioners were declared successful. Moreover, vide Annexure A to the counter affidavit, neither claim of the petitioner has been rejected nor the said examination has been cancelled. The Rule of conducting examination by the Staff Selection Commission has come into effect in the year 2010 and that cannot be implemented retrospectively. Further, the similarly situated persons, viz. the persons who have appeared in the examination for promotion in the Khunti district, have been promoted to Class III Posts. The State Government cannot have two yardsticks with respect to its similarly situated employees and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to Class III Post taking into account the observation made in this order and to pass an order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of this order. 6. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.