JUDGMENT : Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. As per Schedule-I attached to the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Employees Service Rules and Regulations 1993 (for short 'Rules of 1993"), for getting promotion to the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer from the post of Junior Environmental Engineer, Five years service for Degree holders and Ten years service for Diploma holders, is necessary. 2. Now, the issue before this court is "whether a candidate not having Five years experience on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer is entitled to get promotion on the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer merely because his/her appointment was delayed by the recruitment authority?" 3. Background of this case is that pursuant to advertisement no. 3/2010, the petitioner submitted online application for participation in the process of selection on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer, but due to technical error her application was accepted for the post of Junior Scientific Officer. When her request for correction was not accepted, she approached this court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12391/2010 and on 9.9.2010, while passing an interim order, she was allowed to participate in written examination for the post of Junior Environmental Engineer and the respondents were directed to keep her result in a sealed cover, and accordingly she appeared in the written examination and finally her petition was allowed vide order dated 12.7.2011 and the respondents were directed to declare her result and consider her case for appointment on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer. The above order was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench and before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the appeals were dismissed on 26.7.2012 and 23.11.2012 respectively, and finally appointment was given to the petitioner vide order dated 10.12.2012 and on the basis of her merit, she was placed at serial number 6 in the seniority list prepared by the respondents for departmental promotion to the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer for the year 2015-16. Since the petitioner was not having requisite experience of Five years on the post of Junior Engineer, hence Departmental Promotion Committee (for short "DPC") did not consider her case for promotion. Since the petitioner was not having requisite experience of Five years on the post of Junior Engineer, hence Departmental Promotion Committee (for short "DPC") did not consider her case for promotion. Due to lack of requisite experience of Five years, many posts remained vacant, hence the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (for short "RSPC Board") requested the State Government to grant relaxation in experience to fill the vacant promotion posts, and accordingly a decision was taken by the State to relax the Rules and relaxation of one-third (1/3) period was given for promotion to the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer. In spite of grant of one-third period relaxation, the petitioner was lacking two-third experience, hence her case was not considered for promotion. 4. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this court by way of filing this petition with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and :- a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, whereby impugned promotion order dated 21.7.2015 be quashed and set aside and petitioner be given promotion on the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer against the vacancies of the year 2014-15 with all consequential benefits. b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction whereby respondents be directed to give benefit of experience on the post of Junior Environment Engineer to petitioner sinsce November 2010 or in alternative petitioner be given benefit of relaxation of experience for promotion on the post of Assistant Environment Engineer against vacancies of the year 2014-15. c) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just, proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that delay was caused by the respondents in giving appointment to the petitioner and persons less in merit were given appointment on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer prior to the petitioner and their case has been considered by DPC for their promotion on the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer against the vacancies of the year 2015-16 on the basis of experience gained by them on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer. Counsel submits that the respondents should have given benefit of Rule 27(9) of the Rules of 1993 for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher post and they should have treated her experience for the period during which she has not actually performed the duties, and notional benefit of experience should have been given to the petitioner. Counsel submits that period of experience of the petitioner should be counted as per Clause 15.1 of Circular dated 4.6.2008 and the amended Clause 15.1 of the Circular dated 31.3.2015 issued by the Department of Personnel. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the following judgments :- (i) Neeraj Kumar Sainy v. State of U.P. (2017) 14 SCC 136 (ii) C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala (2020) 5 SCC 230 (iii) Union of India v. N.R. Parmar (2012) 13 SCC 340 (iv) Periyathambi Padyachi v. Chinthamani 2019 SCC Online Mad 22757 (v) State of Rajasthan v. Dr. V.K. Chum S.B. CWP No. 15713/2010 (vi) Bhanwarlal Malakar v. State 1990 (1) RLR 576 (vii) The State of Rajasthan v. Shri Bhanwar Lal D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1052/1998 (viii) The State of Rajasthan v. Shri Bhanwar Lal Malakar S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3935/1998 (ix) Bhom Singh Mahlawat v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9106/2008 (x) Laxman Prasad Meena v. State Civil Writ Petition No. 7566/2008 (xi) Jai Narain Meena v. State of Rajasthan 1994 (3) WLC (Raj) 537 (xii) Prakash Chand Meena v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9479/2015 He has also relied on the judgment of this court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Sharma v. State [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16922/2019] with the prayer that the respondents be directed to give notional benefits, like seniority and promotion to the petitioner from the date when the less meritorious persons were given appointment by the respondents. 6. Per contra, the counsel for respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was not having the requisite experience of the post of Junior Environmental Engineer, hence her case was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer. 6. Per contra, the counsel for respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was not having the requisite experience of the post of Junior Environmental Engineer, hence her case was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer. Counsel submits that in the earlier writ petition submitted by the petitioner, no relief was claimed by the petitioner for getting any consequential benefit and her prayer was confined for appointment on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer only and accordingly, this court while allowing her writ petition issued directions for her appointment only. Counsels submitted that the provision of Rule 27(9) of the Rules of 1993 and Clause 15.1 of the Circular of DOP are not applicable in the present case, hence the same was not helpful for the petitioner. Counsels submitted that petitioner is lacking the requisite experience, hence she is not entitled for promotion against the vacancies of 2015-16. In support of their contentions, they have placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court :- (i) Shailendra Dania v. S.P. Dubey (2007) 5 SCC 535 (ii) K.K. Dixit v. Rajasthan Housing Board (2015) 1 SCC 474 7. Lastly, they argued that under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is not entitled for her promotion on the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer against the vacancies of 2015-16. They submitted that promotions have already been given to her against the vacancies of 1018-19 on the basis of her requisite experience. Hence no interference of this court is warranted. 8. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 9. Perusal of the record indicates that in earlier round of litigation, the petitioner has not made any prayer for grant of consequential benefits. She made a prayer only for grant of appointment and accordingly, her petition was allowed by this court vide order dated 12.7.2011 and she was given appointment on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer on 10.12.2012. Now the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim any notional or consequential benefits of the post upon which appointment has been given to her. It appears that the petitioner was satisfied with the directions of her appointment by this court that is why, no efforts were made by her seeking notional or consequential benefits like seniority, promotion etc. Now the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim any notional or consequential benefits of the post upon which appointment has been given to her. It appears that the petitioner was satisfied with the directions of her appointment by this court that is why, no efforts were made by her seeking notional or consequential benefits like seniority, promotion etc. in her earlier round of litigation. 10. Admittedly, for getting promotion on the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer Five years experience on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer is necessary and the petitioner was not having his requisite experience of Five years when the DPC was conducted for promotion for the year 2015-16. That is why her case was not considered for promotion. 11. The petitioner is misinterpreting the Clause and Amended Clause 15.1 of the DOP Circular dated 4.6.2008 and 31.3.2015. The Circular and Rule 27(9) of Rules of 1993 deals with the provision to calculate the period of experience for promotion. 12. The Circular and Rule 27(9) of Rules of 1993 does not provide any relaxation in the Rules. It is worthy to note here that though as per Schedule-I attached with Rules of 1993, Five years experience on the post of Junior Environmental Engineer is required for getting promotion on the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer, but when suitable number of such candidates were not available, the RSPC Board requested the State to relax the Rules and the Rules were relaxed to two-third (2/3) experience. Even after grant of above relaxation the petitioner was lacking the required experience, that is why her case was not considered for promotion. 13. Fixing the period of experience as an essential criterion for promotion, is based on administrative interest in service. There can be no doubt that layer required experience would give better thrust to administrative efficiency and quality output. The experience has to be construed as the actual experience. The experience is a mandatory condition required by Schedule-I of Rules 1993 and dilation of such condition would violate the spirit of Rules. The criteria of having Five years experience for promotion has been fixed under the Rules and the petitioner is supposed to possess the same at the time of consideration of her case for promotion post. The judgments cited by the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. The criteria of having Five years experience for promotion has been fixed under the Rules and the petitioner is supposed to possess the same at the time of consideration of her case for promotion post. The judgments cited by the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. This court finds no force in the argument of counsel for the petitioner that appointment of the petitioner was delayed due to pendency of judicial proceedings. The cause raised by the petitioner was decided by the Single and Division Benches of this court immediately and finally the appeal filed by the RSPC Board was decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 23.11.2012 and immediately thereafter appointment was given to her on 10.12.2012. The latin theory of "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit" is not attracted in the present case. 15. This court does not find any force in the argument of the petitioner that she be given benefit of relaxation in experience for promotion on the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer against the vacancies of 2014-15. Rule of 1993 prerequisite required experience of Five years for promotion and power to relax Rules lies with the State Government i.e. Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, who have not been impleaded as party respondent in this petition. In absence of the same, no direction can be issued for further relaxation in Rules. 16. In view of the discussion made herein above, this court finds no merit in this petition. Hence the same is dismissed. 17. Stay application and all application(s), pending if any, also stands dismissed. 18. No order as to costs.