JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have filed this petition for a prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners to the post of Range Forest Officers and give consequential benefits of seniority and other benefits. 2. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioners were appointed as Foresters in the Year 2008 on a fixed pay basis. On completion of 5 years in the year 2013 they were placed in the regular pay scale. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that by a letter dated 03.06/07.2014 departmental examinations for the post of Range Forest Officers was scheduled on and from 12.07.2014 to 14.07.2014. Holding requisite qualifications the petitioners appeared and an endorsement was accordingly made in the service books of the petitioners of having passed the said examinations in the results declared on 20.06.2015. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that in the seniority list of Foresters the names of the petitioners appear at serial numbers 3483 and 3481 respectively and by various orders of promotions granted to Foresters below the petitioners in the Seniority List promotion to the post of Range Forest Officers have been made whereas the petitioners are not promoted. 5. The Recruitment Rules for the purposes of promotion to the post of Range Forest Officers known as the Range Forest Officer, Recruitment Rules, 2008 provide for passing of prescribed departmental examinations that the petitioners have passed. The Range Forest Officer, Class-II (Departmental Examination) Rules, 2018 which have come into force shall not apply to the case of the petitioners who have passed the examinations in the year 2014. 6. Mr K.B.Pujara learned advocate appearing with Mr.R.D.Kinariwala learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners admittedly have passed the examinations for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officers as is clearly stated in the communication dated 03.06/07.2014. He would submit that persons below the petitioners for example one Smt. K.V. Khambla onwards at Serial No.70 who are promoted as Range Forest Officers are below the petitioners and therefore the petitioners are entitled to promotion the post of Range Forest Officers they having passed the departmental examinations and being senior to these incumbents. He would submit that persons below the petitioners for example one Smt. K.V. Khambla onwards at Serial No.70 who are promoted as Range Forest Officers are below the petitioners and therefore the petitioners are entitled to promotion the post of Range Forest Officers they having passed the departmental examinations and being senior to these incumbents. He has also relied on orders of promotion dated 15.05.2019 where Foresters at Serial No.3492 and 3468 are promoted as Range Forest Officers and they figure below the petitioners in the seniority list of Foresters. 7. The Results of the Examination declared in the year 2015 and the endorsements in the service book clearly indicate that the petitioners have passed the prescribed examination and therefore the petitioners are entitled to the promotion to the post of Range Forest Officers from the date their juniors are so promoted. 8. Mr.Pujara would then submit that pursuant to the affidavit in reply filed earlier based on which it was the stand of the State that the examinations which the petitioners had passed were Departmental Examinations for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests pursuant to the rules called the Gujarat Forest Department Forest Officers (Examination) Rules, 2009 and was therefore not the requisite departmental examinations is a misconceived argument. 9. Mr Pujara would submit that this Court had therefore passed a detailed order on 17.12.2021 pursuant to which an additional affidavit has been filed refuting the claim of the petitioners and submitting that one Mr.Bhutadiya had appeared in the examinations in the year 2018 pursuant to the 2018 Rules. He would submit that the petitioners too had with protest appeared in the examinations as did Mr.Bhutadiya in the examinations as per the 2018 Rules however their promotion ought to have been given admittedly as is evident from the Form A annexed to the reply that several persons between 2009 to 2018 were given promotion to the post of Range Forest Officers when, in the perception of the Department no Departmental Examination Rules were prescribed. If that was so, the petitioner also had completed 7 years of requisite service required for promotion to the posts of Range Forest Officers and therefore were entitled for being so promoted. 10. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma Learned Assistant Government Pleader would vehemently oppose the petition. 11. If that was so, the petitioner also had completed 7 years of requisite service required for promotion to the posts of Range Forest Officers and therefore were entitled for being so promoted. 10. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma Learned Assistant Government Pleader would vehemently oppose the petition. 11. He would submit that merely because the petitioners had passed the examinations under the 2009 Rules would itself not give them a right to be considered for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officers. The communication dated 03.07.2014 cannot be read in the manner as canvassed by the petitioners to mean that the petitioners appeared in the examinations for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officers. The endorsements made in the service book also would not give them the right to so claim. In fact several Foresters and Range Foresters had appeared for the examinations under the Gujarat Forest Department Forest Officers (Examination) Rules, 2009 and the department had by mistake permitted the Foresters to appear in the examinations which were meant for Range Forest Officers and therefore this by itself would not give a right of promotion to the petitioners. 12. As far as the affidavit filed in compliance of the order passed by this court Mr.Sharma would submit that no reliance can be claimed on the case of Mr.Bhutadiya as he had passed the departmental examinations pursuant to the 2018 Rules and the results so declared and the promotion orders dated 09.03.2019 were pursuant to the said examinations and the petitioners therefore could not claim equality on that ground. The petitioners had not passed the said examination and therefore there cannot be negative equality. 13. Mr Sharma would further submit that the Form A in the case of Mr.Bhutadiya clearly indicated that he had cleared the examinations on 31.01.2019. 14. Mr Sharma would further submit that as far as position between 229 and 2018 is concerned there were no Rules in force even when several Foresters were promoted as Range Forest Officers and their Form A annexed to the Reply would indicate that expressly. They were so promoted in light of their fulfilling other requirements in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners were appointed on a regular abscess in the Year 2013 only. 15. They were so promoted in light of their fulfilling other requirements in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners were appointed on a regular abscess in the Year 2013 only. 15. Even as per Rules of 2009 on 12 occasions examinations were held between 2009 and 2018, prior to the framing of the 2018 Rules and twice between 2018 to 2021 and the petitioners were under an oversight and a mistake permitted to appear in these examinations and therefore this would not create a right in favour of the petitioners. 16. Having considered the submissions made by the Learned Advocates for the respective parties, what is evident is that the petitioners were initially appointed as Foresters on a fixed pay basis in the year 1998 and they were absorbed in the regular scale on and from the year 2013 on their respective completion on the relevant dates of completion of 5 years. 17. The Recruitment Rules for recruitment to the post of Range Forest Officers known as the Range Forest Officer, Class-II, Recruitment Rules, 2008 provide that appointment to the post of Range Forest Officer, Class-II is made by either by promotion or direct selection. In order to be eligible for promotion apart from the criteria being that of proved merit and efficiency the incumbent should have completed not less than 7 years of service as a Forester. Moreover the candidate should have passed the prescribed departmental examinations. 18. The case of the petitioners based on the communication dated 03.06/07.2014 does not in any manner carry the case of the petitioners as there were admittedly no departmental examinations or the rules at the relevant time for promotion. The Rules known as the Range Forest Officer, Class-II,(Departmental Examination), Rules, 2018 came into force on 23.01.2018. Reading of the Rules would indicate that the Rules were to apply to the persons who were appointed as Foresters, Class III like the petitioners. The eligibility to appear in the examinations as per Rule 3 provided that to be eligible for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer, Class-II, a person shall be required to pass the examination within a period of three years and within three chances from the date of completing three years of continuous service after his regular appointment to the lower post. 19. 19. The case as it unfolds in the two replies filed by the State indicate that there were no examinations prescribed between 2009 and 2018 and therefore the examinations which the petitioners appeared in, in the year 2014 were departmental examinations under the Gujarat Forest Department Forest Officers (Examinations) Rules, 2009. The department committed a mistake in permitting the petitioners to appear in the said examinations which apply to persons appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Forest Department either by direct recruitment or by promotion and to the Range Forest Officers. The communication dated 03.06/07.2014 has therefore to be read in light of these Rules and therefore the nomenclature "Forest Offices" in the communication cannot be exploited by the petitioners to presume it to be examinations prescribed for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officers. Admittedly the petitioners appeared in the departmental examinations under the Rules of 2009 which otherwise they were not entitled to. 20. The promotion orders of the year 2019 and the case of one Mr.Bhutadiya will be of no assistance to the petitioners. The case of the petitioners that juniors to the petitioners in the seniority are promoted as Range Forest Officers is based on a misconception of they having also passed in the same examinations as the petitioners. The orders of promotion are based on the Results of January 2019 and therefore admittedly they are pursuant to such candidates passing their departmental examinations under the Rules of 2018 which were the only prescribed departmental examinations held between 2009 and 2018. 21. As far as the order passed by this Court on 17.12.2021 and the reply filed by the State, it reveals that the other candidates who are promoted as Range Forest Officers between 2009 and 2018 when no examinations were in place such promotions are based on the fulfillment of other requirements as per the Recruitment Rules. Moreover such appointees were recruited in the year 1983 much before the petitioners and therefore to claim parity on account of the petitioners' completion of eligibility of seven years and claiming equality is also misconceived as the five cases produced in the reply are far senior to the petitioners. 22. Moreover such appointees were recruited in the year 1983 much before the petitioners and therefore to claim parity on account of the petitioners' completion of eligibility of seven years and claiming equality is also misconceived as the five cases produced in the reply are far senior to the petitioners. 22. In view of the fact that the examinations that the petitioners undertook were not the prescribed examinations under the Rules requiring the Foresters to pass the prescribed departmental examinations, which only came into force on 23.01.2018 and their examination results were under the Rules of 2009 which were not the prescribed examinations and the department through oversight permitted them to appear in such examinations, no right or claims based on Article 14 is available to the petitioners. 23. Accordingly the petitioners are not entitled to claim the reliefs prayed for and the petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.