ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your Lordship may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents may kindly be directed:- (i) to quash and set aside communication dated 06/02/2019 (Annex.10) and order dated 26/02/2019 (Annex.11) qua petitioner. (ii) to grant the proforma promotion to the post of Principal pursuant to order dated 16/07/2015 (Annex.5) from the date of granted to similarly situated employees; (iii) to pay the difference amount payable from the date of grant of proforma promotion to the post of Principal alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. (iv) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the petitioner may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice; and (v) cost of litigation may kindly be ordered to be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Senior Teacher Grade–II vide order dated 22.09.1988; thereafter, he was appointed on the post of School Lecturer vide order dated 07.08.1990. The petitioner appeared in the selection process for the post of Education Extension Officer and he declared successful vide order dated 05.08.1995. Thereafter, he was selected as Block Development Officer (BDO) at Panchayat Samiti Piprali on deputation for a period of 3 years vide order dated 26.07.1999 and the same was extended time to time. 2.1. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Principal against the vacant post for the year 2015-16, and ordered to be posted at Senior Secondary School, Kanchola by the respondent-Directorate of Secondary Education vide order dated 16.07.2015. On pursuance of said order, the petitioner vide communication dated 17.07.2015 requested the respondents to grant him the proforma promotion because he was working on deputation on the post of BDO at Panchayat Samiti Hindoli, Bundi. The Department of Panchayati Raj vide communication dated 26.08.2015 also informed the respondent-Directorate of Secondary Education that at present many seats of BDO are lying vacant, and therefore, requested to grant the proforma promotion to the petitioner. 2.2. The Department of Panchayati Raj vide communication dated 26.08.2015 also informed the respondent-Directorate of Secondary Education that at present many seats of BDO are lying vacant, and therefore, requested to grant the proforma promotion to the petitioner. 2.2. Thereafter, the respondent-Directorate of Secondary Education gave proforma promotion to some other persons who were also working as BDO on deputation, but the petitioner was not considered for the same and his place of posting was changed vide order dated 10.08.2015 by the respondent. The respondent-Directorate of Secondary Education however, vide the impugned order dated 06.02.2019, after more than three years from the date of promotion of the petitioner, cancelled the said promotion order dated 16.07.2015 of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner did not join the promotional post. 2.3. The respondent-Directorate of Secondary Education vide order dated 26.02.2019, forwarded the name of the petitioner to the Department Promotion Committee (DPC) for considering his case for promotion afresh on the post of Principal against vacancy for the year 2018-19. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Department of Panchayati Raj vide communication dated 26.08.2015 informed the respondent-Directorate of Secondary Education that at present many posts of BDO are lying vacant, and therefore, requested to grant the proforma promotion to the petitioner, but the respondent-Directorate of Secondary Education cancelled the petitioner’s promotion, which is unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an employee cannot join the parent department until and unless he is relieved by the department, wherein he was on deputation. He also submits that the other similar situated employees who were deputed to work as BDO were considered for proforma promotion on the request of Department of Panchayati Raj. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Principal after two DPC’s against the vacancies of the year 2018-19. He further submits that as per the averments made in the petition, the cause of action arose to the petitioner in the year 2015, however, after four years, he has filed the writ petition without any satisfactory explanation for such an inordinate delay. 6. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case. 7. He further submits that as per the averments made in the petition, the cause of action arose to the petitioner in the year 2015, however, after four years, he has filed the writ petition without any satisfactory explanation for such an inordinate delay. 6. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case. 7. At the outset, this Court observes that on 26.08.2015, a communication (Annexure-7) was addressed by the Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, to the respondent-Director Secondary Education, Bikaner, whereby it was requested that since many posts of BDO are lying vacant, therefore, the BDOs (whose parent department is Secondary Education) working, on deputation, under the Department of Panchayati Raj may be granted the benefit of proforma promotion; the said communication dated 26.08.2015 reads as under : ^^funs'kd] ek/;fed f'k{kk foHkkx] chdkusjA fo"k; %& fodkl vf/kdkfj;ksa dks izksQkekZ izeks'ku dk ykHk fn;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd vki }kjk fuEufyf[kr fodkl vf/kdkfj;ksa dks is&cs.M 15600&39100] ih-ch-&3] xzsM is&6600 esa o"kZ 2015&16 dh fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) inksUur dj dk;ZHkkj lEHkkayus dh frfFk ls iz/kkukpk;Z& mekfo ,oa led{k in ij inksUur fd;k x;k gS%& Øa- la- Ukke vf/kdkjh orZeku inLFkkfir LFkku 1- Jh gjQwyflag pkS/kjh iapk;r lfefr fpryokuk ftyk tkykSj 2- Jh fnua'k pUn dVkjk iapk;r lfefr lSikm ftyk /kkSyiqj 3- Jh jkeizdk'k xkyo iapk;r lfefr :iokl ftyk Hkjriqj 4- Jh dSyk'k pUn vjMkofr;k iapk;r lfefr fiijyh ftyk lhdj 5- Jh nsoh flag yks/kk iapk;r lfefr c;kuk ftyk Hkjriqj bl lEcU/k esa ys[k gS fd foHkkx esa orZeku esa dkQh la[;k esa fodkl vf/kdkfj;ksa ds in fjDr py jgs gSA vr% vki mijksDr fodkl vf/kdkfj;ksa dks izfrfu;qfDr ij j[krs gq, izksQkekZ inksUufr dk ykHk fnykdj inksUufr ds vkns'k tkjh djkus dk Je djkosaA ¼fxjh'k ikjk'kj½ 'kklu mi lfpo ¼iz'kk-1½** 8. This Court finds that the petitioner was promoted after the recommendation made by Department Promotion Committee (DPC) against the vacant post for the year 2015-16. This Court further finds that the Department of Panchayati Raj also addressed communication to respondent-Directorate of Secondary Education and stated that many posts of BDO are lying vacant and therefore, the department requested for grant of proforma promotion to the petitioner. This Court further finds that the Department of Panchayati Raj also addressed communication to respondent-Directorate of Secondary Education and stated that many posts of BDO are lying vacant and therefore, the department requested for grant of proforma promotion to the petitioner. 8.1 The petitioner had no option to comply with the promotion order, as issued in the year 2015, as he was not relieved by the Department, where he was working on deputation, for the reasons mentioned in the communication dated 26.08.2015, as quoted above, of the Secretary to the Government, Department of Panchayati Raj, addressed to the parent Department of the present petitioner. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned action has been taken by the respondents, without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner, and thus, such action of the respondents is unsustainable in the eye of law. 9. Thus, looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the material placed on the record, the impugned Communication dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure-10) and Order dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure-11) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant proforma promotion on the post of Principal, to the petitioner, w.e.f. 16.07.2015, with all consequential benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. The present petition stands allowed, to the extent indicated above. All pending applications stand disposed of.