ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for promoting him on the post of Inspector Land Records. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the case are that the petitioner having cleared Patwar Competitive Examination, 1999 was appointed as Patwari vide order dated 22/04/2003. While the petitioner was performing the duties of Patwari, he was granted the upgradation of the pay scale on completion of nine years of service. After grant of first ACP, the petitioner was entitled for the grant of second ACP on completion of 18 years of service in the year 2019. However, grant of second ACP was deferred on account that petitioner having fathered a third child. The second ACP was actually granted to the petitioner on 14/05/2022. Since the petitioner’s case was ripped for promotion, the respondents considered his case for promotion on the post of Senior Patwari. The petitioner was also promoted on the post of Senior Patwari vide order dated 30/08/2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since at the time of incurring ineligibility for the grant of second ACP on account of having fathered third child, there was no post of Senior Patwari, thus, the case of the petitioner should have been considered for promotion on the post of Inspector Land Records. He further submits that during the currency of the deferment period, a person junior to the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Inspector Land Records. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Inspector Land Records instead of Senior Patwari. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that by virtue of notification dated 21/10/2021, Schedule-1 of the Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, Settlement and Colonization), Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 was amended and a promotion post of Senior Patwari was introduced between the post of Patwari and Inspector Land Records. Learned counsel submits that the date on which the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion, a post of Senior Patwari was in existence as per the Rules and, therefore, the respondents were correct in giving promotion to the petitioner on the post of Senior Patwari. Learned counsel submits that the date on which the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion, a post of Senior Patwari was in existence as per the Rules and, therefore, the respondents were correct in giving promotion to the petitioner on the post of Senior Patwari. He submits that the case of the petitioner was not ripped for promotion in the year 2019 and there was no question of giving promotion or considering his case for promotion on the post of Inspector Land Records. He submits that during the currency of the deferment period, the case of the person who was junior to the petitioner was ripped for consideration and, therefore, the Rules existing on that particular date were taken into consideration for the grant of promotion and since there was no post of Senior Patwari, case of person junior to petitioner was considered for promotion on the post of Inspector Land Records and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the department. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. Admitted facts in the present case are that the petitioner after being appointed on the post of Patwari was granted first ACP in the year 2010 and when the case of grant of second ACP was due after completion of 18 years i.e. in the year 2019, the petitioner incurred a disqualification in view of the notification of the State Government dated 01/06/2017 for deferment of the same for a period of three years and, therefore, the ACP of the petitioner was deferred for a period of three years and was ultimately granted vide order dated 14/05/2022. During the course of deferment of the promotion and grant of ACP to the petitioner for three years, Rules of 2019 were amended and a new post of Senior Patwari was added in the hierarchy of the posts. The date on which the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion, the respondents have taken into consideration the Schedule-1 of the Rules of 2019, which was in existence on the date of consideration of the petitioner’s case and as per that schedule, the next promotional post of Patwari was Senior Patwari and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was rightly considered for promotion on the post of Senior Patwari. 8. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that during the currency of deferment period of three years, a person junior to the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Inspector Land Records and, therefore, case of the petitioner should also be considered for the promoted post of Inspector Land Records is noted to be rejected on the ground that on the date on which the case of the person junior to him was considered, there was no post of Senior Patwari and, therefore, the respondents have rightly considered the case of the person who is junior to the petitioner for promotion on the post of Inspector Land Records. Therefore, no fault can be made by the respondents while granting promotion to the person junior to the petitioner on the post of Inspector Land Records. 9. After completion of the deferment period of three years, the respondents were under an obligation to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. While undertaking the exercise for grant of promotion to the petitioner, since the amended Rules had come into force and the promoted post of Patwari is Senior Patwari, therefore, the respondents had rightly promoted the petitioner on the post of Senior Patwari. It is a settled law that the Rules in existence on the date of consideration for promotion shall be applicable in the promotional exercise undertaken by the department. Therefore, in the present case, the petitioner cannot be granted promotion directly on the post of Inspector Land Records. 10. In view of the discussions made above, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18878/2022 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18887/2022 : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18900/2022 : 11. The controversy involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by a detailed order of even date passed by this Court in the case of Pavan Kumar Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18871/2022). 12. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are also dismissed.