Order : 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayer :- “It is therefore humbly prayed that this petition for writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ, order or direction - i) the impugned order dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure 5) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the representation filed by the petitioner may kindly allowed. ii) the respondents authorities may kindly be directed to determine year-wise vacancies and promote the petitioner w.e.f. the respective year of availability of vacancies on the post of Assistant Registrar all consequential benefits. iii) Further, the petitioner may kindly be given notional benefits w.e.f. the date of post Assistant Registrar got vacant. iv) Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just and proper may kindly be issued in favor of the petitioner. v) Costs may kindly be also awarded.” 2. The bare factual matrix of the case for the consideration of this Court are that the petitioner was appointed as LDC on 28.07.1986, promoted to UDC on 23.11.1998, subsequently promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter on 05.04.2006, then the promotion happened for the post of Court Master on 20.11.2013, and now the bone of contention in the present matter is the promotion order to the post of Assistant Registrar, which was issued on 30.01.2020. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vikas Balia appearing for the petitioner submits that the limited point for consideration before this court is that the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, which is a merit-based promotion, ought to have been given effect from the date when the vacancy arose, at least notionally, and not from the date when the order was made i.e. on 17.07.2020. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further taken this Court to the Rule 6 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules of 2002’), in which determination of vacancies is prescribed. For ready reference, the said rule is reproduced hereunder :- “ 6. DETERMINATION OF VACANCIES.— (1) (a) Subject to the provisions of these Rules, the Appointing Authority shall determine on 1st April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. For ready reference, the said rule is reproduced hereunder :- “ 6. DETERMINATION OF VACANCIES.— (1) (a) Subject to the provisions of these Rules, the Appointing Authority shall determine on 1st April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. (b) Where a post is to be filled in by a single method as prescribed in the Rules or Schedule, the vacancies so determined shall be filled in by that method. (c) Where a post is to be filled in by more than one method as prescribed in the Rules or Schedule, the apportionment of vacancies, determined under clause (a) above, to each such method shall be done maintaining the prescribed proportion for the overall number of posts already filled in. If any fraction of vacancies is left over, after apportionment of the vacancies in the manner prescribed above, the same shall be apportioned to the quota of various methods prescribed in a continuous cyclic order giving precedence to the promotion quota. (2) The Appointing Authority shall also determine the vacancies of earlier years, year wise which were required to be filled in by promotion, if such vacancies were not determined and filled earlier in the year in which they were required to be filled in.” 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that there was a mandatory requirement to determine the vacancy by 1 st April of every year, therefore, it was incumbent on the respondents to act upon the requirement and grant seniority from the date the vacancy arose; rather than the date of actual appointment. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 01.04.2015 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 01.04.2015 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7408/2014), the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under :- “6 In view of above reply and Annexure-11, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioner for promotion is pending and it is assured by the High Court that case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar will be considered against the vacancies of earlier years as and when regular promotion will be made, therefore, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.1 that the case of the petitioner shall be considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar against the vacancies of earlier years strictly in accordance with Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if as per the service record and eligibility of the petitioner, it is found that he is entitled for promotion against the vacancies of particular year then consequential benefits may be granted to him by speaking order.” 7. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar (supra) had directed that the petitioner therein be considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar against the vacancies of earlier years and, therefore, it was a binding precedent of law, which ought to have been followed by the respondents. Learned Senior Counsel has further drawn attention of this Court to the previous orders particularly the order dated 12.03.2015 (Annexure-5), which reflects that the promotion was granted by the respondents from the date when the vacancy occurred. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that such orders were continuously passed and, thus, an equal status has to be conferred upon the present petitioner for computing his actual benefits of the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar from the initial date when the vacancies arose. 9. Learned counsel Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat appearing for the respondents submits that the Rule 6 of the Rules of 2002, which does not prescribe that the benefits have to be granted from the date of vacancy arose. 10. 9. Learned counsel Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat appearing for the respondents submits that the Rule 6 of the Rules of 2002, which does not prescribe that the benefits have to be granted from the date of vacancy arose. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents further points out the judgment rendered in Rajendra Kumar (supra), particularly the paragraph quoted above, which does not give any indication that the promotion has to be made from the date of vacancy arose, but simply gives a directions for consideration of promotion against a particular vacancy. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that she may have a different submission if it was a case of seniority or seniority-cum-merit, where someone was being impacted on account of a junior being promoted, thereby jumping the queue of seniority. Under those circumstances, the proposition could have been considered by this Court, subject to the legal parameters involved. However, in this particular case, where the parameter is strictly based on merit, there is no question of the petitioner having been impacted in the queue for promotion by any person junior to him, who has already been appointed. It was, therefore, a case of a strict interpretation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the promotion has been given from the date of consideration. She further submits that it cannot be considered an actual right to the promotion; however, at best, the petitioner can claim for consideration, which has duly been made and the promotion has appropriately been granted. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the judgment dated 06.07.2012 passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. R.N. Malhotra , the relevant part of which, reads as follows :- “10. Baij Nath Sharma (supra) followed the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.K. Vadera :1989 Supp (2) SCC 625 which categorically stated as under:- We do not know of any law or any rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post. After a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant. 11. After a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant. 11. It was further observed in K.K. Vadera (supra) as under:- If on the contrary, promotions are directed to become effective from the date of the creation of additional posts, the it would have the effect of giving promotions even before the Assessment Board has met and assessed the suitability of the candidates for promotion. 12. The clear view taken by the Supreme Court is that a promotion cannot be granted prior to the convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee which considered the question of promotion. The only rider is where a junior has been promoted prior to the superannuation of the retired employee. In view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the submission made by Mr Sinha that the order passed by the Tribunal on 07.02.2007 cannot be sustained in law. We also note that even if it is considered that the order passed by the Tribunal was a consent order, there cannot be a concession against the law. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.” 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to certain orders of this High Court, whereby the promotions have been granted from the date when the person joined. Learned counsel for the respondents has also taken this Court to the judgment dated 12.01.2017 passed by this Court in Bharat Bhatia Vs. Rajasthan High Court (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3274/2016) , wherein this Court has held that even if there is no fundamental right to promotion, there is undoubtedly right to be considered for promotion in due time and has dealt with the promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Court Master and A.O.J.. The relevant part of the above mentioned judgment reads as follows: “Even if there is no fundamental right to promotion, there is undoubtedly right to be considered for promotion in due time. The explanation offered by the Respondent is paucity of Stamp Reporters which cannot be rejected as arbitrary. No person junior to the Petitioner has been promoted to the post of Court Master. The explanation offered by the Respondent is paucity of Stamp Reporters which cannot be rejected as arbitrary. No person junior to the Petitioner has been promoted to the post of Court Master. The grievance primarily is that his chances for promotion and seniority on the post of Assistant Registrar will be prejudicially affected vis-a-vis those promoted on the post of Administrative Officer Judicial in August, 2013. The post of Court Master and Administrative Officer Judicial are feeder cadres for the post of Assistant Registrar. While seniority-cum-merit is the criteria for promotion to the former, in the latter case it is merit alone. There is no minimum time period prescribed before Court Masters and Administrative Officer Judicial can be considered for further promotion. The apprehension of the Petitioner that he may be prejudiced in seniority and promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar is therefore completely misconceived. If promotion is based on merit alone, the promotion itself becomes a matter of chance which may or may not be granted. No claim can be based on a foundation of a fact the existence of which is itself uncertain. There is no merit in the writ petition. The petition is dismissed.” 13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in the present case, the seniority was not involved; rather, the criteria was merit only, therefore, the respondents have granted the promotion to the petitioner from the date of actual joining and not from the retrospective date. 14. This Court finds that the limited bone of contention in the present case is that the petitioner, who was promoted on the post for Assistant Registrar on 30.01.2020, has sought promotion from the time of the vacancy arose; rather than the order of the respondents granting promotion. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the paragraph (iii) of the prayer stating that the petitioner seeks only notional benefits with effect from the post of Assistant Registrar got vacant. 16. This Court, when the merit is the promotional criteria, is of the considered opinion that a person has to be promoted from the date when the orders of promotion are made, following proper consideration. Any retrospective promotion from the date of vacancy would be prejudicial to the whole order. 16. This Court, when the merit is the promotional criteria, is of the considered opinion that a person has to be promoted from the date when the orders of promotion are made, following proper consideration. Any retrospective promotion from the date of vacancy would be prejudicial to the whole order. The Rule 6 of the Rules of 2002, which has been referred to and reproduced in Annexure-4, regarding determination of vacancy, does not prescribe for any particular manner in which the promotion has to be given from the date of the vacancy and, thus, in plain understanding, such promotion has to be given from the date when it has been considered and given effect. 17. This Court also finds that the judgment dated 12.01.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Bhatia Vs. Rajasthan High Court (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3274/2016) has dealt with the promotion of Assistant Registrar and the Division Bench has found that in a case where merit is the criteria any kind of retrospective promotion from the date of vacancy is not called for. 18. This Court has also kept into consideration the judgment of the Delhi High Court passed in the case of Union of India Vs. R.N. Malhotra (supra), in which the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Baij Nath Sharma (supra) and K.K. Vadera (supra) has already been quoted, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there is no such rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that after a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant. 19. In light of such clear determination by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the consideration made by this Court, it is clear that when the promotion criteria is strictly merit, the promotion has to be based upon the order under which the promotion has been granted and not from the date on which the posts got vacant. 19. In light of such clear determination by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the consideration made by this Court, it is clear that when the promotion criteria is strictly merit, the promotion has to be based upon the order under which the promotion has been granted and not from the date on which the posts got vacant. Even if the respondents have erred in not determining the vacancies in accordance with the statue, the petitioner cannot claim that they should have given promotion from retrospective date when the vacancies arose and for the period when such promotional duties were not actually discharged by the petitioner. 20. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.