to be considered as an in-service candidate as provided in Rule 10 of Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch), Research Assistants' State Service Class III Rules, 1956. Second, it was again an admitted case that the appellant was working as a Silt Observer/Analyst and in addition to the duties assigned to this post, he was also performing the duties of Research Assistant Grade B as per the directives of the office. Third, the appellant had admittedly fulfilled the eligibility criteria and qualification prescribed in Rule 10 (l)(b)(i) and (2) as also the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post in question for direct recruits. Fourth, the competent authorities had also recommended the case of the promotion of the appellant certifying that the appellant is fit for promotion. Fifth, the appellant worked on the promotional post and performed the duties assigned to the promotional post from 14.12.2001 till 10.12.2002. Sixth, since the Government, despite merging the Grade C post in Grade-B post, did not amend the Rules and on the other hand continued with the on-amended Rules for filling the vacancies including vacancies by promotion, hence, the case of the appellant had to be considered in the light of the requirement of the Rules. It was necessary for the State to have made appropriate amendments in the Rules after merger of one post into another, but so long as this exercise was not done by the State, the employees, who had otherwise fulfilled the requirement prescribed in the existing Rules for consideration of their cases for promotion, they could not be denied the benefits flowing from the Rules and lastly, in the absence of any adverse entries or/and record of the appellant and further in the absence of any allegation made against the appellant for suppressing any material information, there is no justification on the part of the State to have recalled the promotional order. of the appellant on the basis of some complaints said to have been made by someone after a long lapse of time which also had no factual or/and legal foundation. [Paras 28 and 29] [317-B-G)
