ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to include and consider their names for promotion in the DPC for the post of Senior Patwari for the year 2021-22 and include the names of the petitioners being senior and meritorious for promotion on the post of Senior Patwari with all consequential benefits. 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the recruitment to the post of Patwari was conducted by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board wherein, the petitioners were wrongly deprived of selection and as such, the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions. The writ petitions came to be allowed on 10.04.2018 (Annex.1) wherein, the petitions were allowed and the respondents were directed to accord appointment to the petitioners on the post of Patwari after considering all other conditions, eligibility and merit. Further directions for grant of all the benefits at par with other similarly situated candidates were given. Whereafter, in compliance of the judgment (Annex.1) the Selection Board issued final select list for TSP area on 06.07.2018, the petitioners were declared successful to be appointed as Patwari in TSP area assigning merit. The petitioners were accorded appointment by the concerned Collector (Land Record) by order dated 01.08.2018 and in the appointment orders the petitioners were assigned their merit. It is submitted that the petitioners were more meritorious than the candidates, who were originally appointed pursuant to the recruitment notification and were wrongly denied appointment, which came to be granted after the judgment of this Court. The petitioners joined the duties and their services were later on confirmed. 3. The respondents thereafter issued a final seniority list as on 01.04.2022 and the petitioners were assigned their seniority as per their merit position as awarded by the Staff Selection Board. It is thereafter indicated that vide notification (Annex.8) dated 21.10.2021 the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, Settlement and Colonization) Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 (‘Rules’) came to be amended, whereby Schedule-I appended to the Rules was substituted wherein, the post of Senior Patwari was created, which was to be filled in 100% by promotion from the Patwari requiring five years’ experience on the post of Patwari. 4. 4. After issuance of the notification, the vacancies of Senior Patwari were determined as on 01.04.2022 and in all 5000 posts were determined to be filled up as Senior Patwari in the State, out of which 516 posts were sanctioned to be filled up from the Patwari working in TSP area. 5. However, looking to the fact that requisite candidates having experience of five years on the post of Patwari were not available, the Registrar, Revenue Board sought relaxation of one year in the experience. It is then indicated in the petition that though the petitioners have the eligibility in terms of the criteria provided, equivalent to those, who were appointed pursuant to Recruitment 2015, their names have not been recommended for promotion. Annex.10 has been filed to indicate that in District Pratapgarh, though names of those who were appointed earlier pursuant to Recruitment-2015 have been recommended, though the petitioners are higher in the merit, their names have not been recommended. By way of example, it is submitted that while the candidate, who stood in the merit at Serial No.5260 has been recommended for promotion, whereas petitioner, namely, Deelip Patel, who stands at Merit No.7, has not been recommended. 6. The petitioners approached the respondents by way of representation inter-alia indicating that they were more meritorious and senior than the candidates, who are to be considered by the DPC for promotion on the post of Senior Patwari and therefore, they may also be considered as they have also notionally completed four years service as Patwari. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in not recommending the names of the petitioners for promotion on the purported ground of their lacking in requisite experience on the post of Patwari in the present case is not justified. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in not recommending the names of the petitioners for promotion on the purported ground of their lacking in requisite experience on the post of Patwari in the present case is not justified. Submissions have been made that for no fault of the petitioners, they were denied appointment at the time others were accorded appointment, forcing them to approach this Court by filing writ petitions, which came to be allowed and it was specifically directed that the petitioners would be entitled to all the benefits at par with all similarly situated candidates, which benefit was accorded to the petitioners by assigning them seniority as per their merit on the post of Patwari, however, by claiming that the petitioners do not have actual experience of four years working on the post of Patwari, they are not eligible for consideration for promotion on the post of Senior Patwari. It is submitted that once this Court directed granting the petitioners all the benefits at par with all other similarly situated candidates, the petitioners were entitled to be treated similar for all purposes including the experience and denial by the respondents in this regard cannot be justified. 8. Reliance has been placed on Naveen Patidar vs. The State of Rajathan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10729/2018 decided on 03.01.2020, Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Sh. Rakesh Beniwal & Ors. : 2014 (213) DLT 748 and Union of India & Ors. vs. K.B. Rajoria : (2000) 3 SCC 562 . 9. Learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the submissions. It was submitted that what is required under the Rules is actual experience on the post of Patwari and as admittedly the petitioners have not completed four years on the post of Patwari, they are not eligible. Submissions have been made that only on the ground of according seniority under the directions of this Court, the same cannot enure for the purpose of experience and that the claim of notional experience cannot partake the requirement as actual experience, which is the requirement under the Rules and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Patwari. Reliance has been placed on Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar : (1996) 4 SCC 416 . 10. Reliance has been placed on Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar : (1996) 4 SCC 416 . 10. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. The undisputed fact situation, which emerges is that the recruitment for the post of Patwari was initiated by advertisement dated 04.11.2015. The petitioners applied for the same, however, on the purported ground of their having acquired the eligibility qualification after the cutoff date, after document verification, they were denied the appointment. Those in the select list were accorded appointment on 11.10.2017. 12. Aggrieved against the denial of the appointment, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court wherein, the Court after coming to the conclusion that action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioners was not justified, inter-alia, directed as under: “In the wake of the determination made above, the present writ petitions are allowed, and the respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioners on the post of Patwari, as per the main advertisement, if they have acquired the requisite qualification of RS-CIT Course before the date on which the main written competitive examination i.e. 24.12.2016 was conducted. However, such appointment shall be given after considering all other conditions, eligibility and merit. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, while granting to the petitioners all the benefits at par with all other similarly situated candidates.” 13. Based on the directions, the petitioners were accorded appointment on 06.08.2018. The respondents whereafter issued State level seniority list as on 01.04.2022 wherein, the petitioners were assigned seniority as per their merit, as is reflected from Annex.7. In the meanwhile, the Rules of 2019 came to be amended by notification dated 21.10.2021 providing for post of Senior Patwari. The Schedule appended to the Rules insofar as is relevant, inter-alia, reads as under: 1A Senior Patwari 100% by promotion - Patwari 5 years’ experience on the post mentioned in column 5 - 14. A perusal of the above would reveal that the post of Senior Patwari was to be filled up 100% by promotion from the post of Patwari and the eligibility has been indicated as five years experience on the post mentioned in Column 5 i.e. the post of Patwari. A perusal of the above would reveal that the post of Senior Patwari was to be filled up 100% by promotion from the post of Patwari and the eligibility has been indicated as five years experience on the post mentioned in Column 5 i.e. the post of Patwari. As the requisite number of candidates for the sanctioned posts i.e. 5000 in total having requisite experience were not available, the Registrar, Revenue Board sought relaxation of one year and indicated that in case the relaxation was granted, the available vacant posts can be filled to some extent. 15. The case of the petitioners is that in case their experience is counted from the date of appointment of similarly placed candidates, i.e. 11.10.2017 instead of 06.08.2018, they would be completing four years period as on 01.04.2022 and would, therefore, be eligible, however, denial on the part of the respondents in this regard is not justified. 16. As noticed, it has been emphasized that the delay in according appointment to the petitioners, who were all more meritorious than those who were accorded appointment by orders dated 11.10.2017, for no fault of theirs, they cannot be deprived of the benefit. Submissions have also been made that as this Court directed grant of the benefits at par with all other similarly situated candidates, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the same. 17. As noticed, this Court while deciding the petitions filed by the petitioners came to a categoric conclusion that in terms of the advertisement the petitioners were eligible and were wrongly denied appointment as Patwari though they stood in the merit and consequently while allowing the writ petitions, gave specific directions to grant all the benefits at par with other similarly situated candidates. The respondents have complied with the same by assigning seniority to the petitioners, which is reflected from Annex.7, wherein as on 01.04.2022, the petitioners have been assigned seniority as per their merit in terms of Recruitment 2015. 18. The emphasis laid by the respondents that though the petitioners may be entitled to seniority in terms of their merit, they cannot claim experience on the post of Patwari for the purpose of their eligibility for consideration for promotion on the post of Senior Patwari, cannot be countenanced. 19. As noticed, the directions of the Court were very specific according all the benefits to the petitioners. 19. As noticed, the directions of the Court were very specific according all the benefits to the petitioners. Once the petitioners have been accorded seniority (Annex.7) they cannot possibly be denied promotion despite being senior to those who were accorded appointment prior to the petitioners, though lower in the merit, inasmuch as promotion is the consequence of seniority and would be an inevitable corollary to grant of seniority under the directions of this Court. 20. The terms ‘Seniority’ and ‘Seniority System’ have been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition as under: “Seniority. 1. The preferential status, privileges, or rights given an employee based on the employee’s length of service with an employer. Employees with seniority may receive additional or enhanced benefit packages and obtain competitive advantages over fellow employees in layoff and promotional decisions. 2. The status of being older or senior. Seniority system. Employment law. Any arrangement that recognizes length of service in making decisions about job layoffs and promotions or other advancements.” 21. Promotion is comprehended within the word ‘seniority’ and there is no good reason for restricting the word seniority as though giving of seniority but depriving of the promotion based on seniority, which essentially negates the very purpose of according seniority. Further, the very fact that the petitioners have been accorded seniority essentially under the directions of this Court on account of their having been deprived of appointment alongwith those less meritorious than them, the award of seniority to them, has introduced a fiction, whose basic purpose under the direction of the Court was to accord the benefit, which otherwise was not available to the petitioners. 22. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sadhana Khanna : (2008) 1 SCC 720 while referring to the Circulars issued by the Union of India came to the conclusion that as the respondents therein where to be blamed for delayed sending of letters offering appointment to the petitioners therein and certain candidates who were junior to them were issued letters offering appointment prior to them and that in case they were not considered for lack of experience, a very incongruous situation would arise, namely, that juniors will be considered for promotion, but the senior will not, upheld the relief granted. 23. In Pilla Sitaram Patrudu & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 23. In Pilla Sitaram Patrudu & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. : (1996) 8 SCC 637 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that as the respondent therein was selected by direct recruitment, he was entitled to be appointed according to Rules and as his appointment was delayed, for no fault of his, he was entitled to ranking given in the select list and appointment accordingly. 24. In Union of India vs. K.B. Rajoria (supra), it was inter-alia observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: “The notional promotion was given to Krishnamoorti to right the wrong that had been done to him by his supersession on 22nd February, 1995. If Krishnamoorti is denied the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director General on the basis of such notional promotion, particularly when the relevant provisions so provide, it would result in perpetuating the wrong done to him. That is exactly what the High Court has done.” 25. Much emphasis has been laid by the respondents on the judgment in the case of M. Bhaskar (supra) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter-alia observed as under: “15. The aforesaid decision has been challenged in this appeal by the Union of India by contending that 2 years' period of experience has to be reckoned, not from 11.10.1988, but from 21.9.1989. There is no dispute that the eligibility condition is 2 years experience in Grade-II. Now, this respondent having really started working in Grade-II pursuant to the order of 21.9.1989, he could not have gained experience prior to the date he had joined pursuant to this order. The mere fact that his promotion in Grade-II was notionally made effective from 11.10.1988 cannot be taken to mean that he started gaining experience from that day, because to gain experience one has to work. Notional promotions are given to take care of some injustice, inter alia, because some junior has come to be promoted earlier. But we entertain no doubt that the person promoted to higher grade cannot gain experience from the date of the notional promotion; it has to be from the date of too actual promotion.” 26. Notional promotions are given to take care of some injustice, inter alia, because some junior has come to be promoted earlier. But we entertain no doubt that the person promoted to higher grade cannot gain experience from the date of the notional promotion; it has to be from the date of too actual promotion.” 26. No doubt in the case of M. Bhaskar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the matter wherein the employee was given notional promotion from 21.10.1988 and started the actual working from 29.01.2018 and the question was from which date his experience should be counted. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that services for the purpose of eligibility will be counted from the date he actually started working. The said judgment cannot be mechanically made applicable to the present case in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, wherein this Court in specific terms directed grant of all the benefits at par with all other similarly situated candidates, which necessarily mean and has been understood by the respondents by according them seniority. It is well settled law that a judgment may be treated as precedent by considering the relevant facts on which the judgment is based; in the present case the rights of the petitioners already stood crystallized by order passed in previous petitions filed by them, whereas in the case of M. Bhaskar (supra), there was no prior adjudication by any Court and therefore, the said judgment is distinguishable. 27. In case, the plea raised by the respondents is accepted, the same would negate the relief as granted by this Court, which cannot be permitted. It is well settled that the judgments cannot be read as Statute as the same depends on the facts and circumstances in which the judgments are delivered and even a single fact may change the presidential value of the judgment. Reference in this regard may be made to Bhav Nagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. : (2003) 2 SCC 111 and therefore, on account of distinguishing feature in the present case regarding prior adjudication and direction by this Court, the judgment in the case of M. Bhaskar (supra) would have no application. 28. Reference in this regard may be made to Bhav Nagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. : (2003) 2 SCC 111 and therefore, on account of distinguishing feature in the present case regarding prior adjudication and direction by this Court, the judgment in the case of M. Bhaskar (supra) would have no application. 28. In view of above discussion, it is apparent that on account of directions accorded by this Court in the previous litigation, the petitioners who are apparently higher in the merit and were wrongly denied appointment at the relevant time and with the intervention of the Court were accorded appointment, cannot be deprived of the consequence of the directions issued by the Court, as depriving them of the consequence of the seniority whereby those far lower in the merit and seniority, would be entitled to promotion and the petitioners would be denied of the same for no fault of their, the petitioners are entitled to the relief as claimed. 29. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of seniority to the petitioners by treating them eligible for promotion on the post of Senior Patwari by taking their experience on the post of Patwari w.e.f. 11.10.2017, the date the persons lower in merit/junior to them, were accorded appointment/have been treated as eligible for promotion. 30. In case the persons lower in merit/junior to the petitioners have already been accorded promotion on the post of Senior Patwari, the respondents would hold DPC and consider the case of the petitioners for promotion as Senior Patwari by treating them eligible as on 01.04.2022 and in case they are found eligible for promotion, accord them promotion with all consequential benefits at par with those, who have been accorded promotion as Senior Patwari, though lower in merit/junior to the petitioners. The entire exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of this order. 31. No order as to costs.