JAI KUMAR BHADU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) ALL these petitions heard together as they involved common question of law and facts. The petitioners of these writ petitions are in service of the Police Department of the Government of Rajasthan appointed under the provisions of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules of 1989' ). The dispute is whether they are holding the post of Constable (Civil Police) as provided in the Section 1 of Sub- Rule (1) of the Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 or whether they were holding the post of Constable (Driver ). Since, the facts of all the cases are same, therefore, reference of the documents placed in Jai Kumar Bhadu vs. State & Ors. (1), will be sufficient for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions.

(3.) THE age limit prescribed for the recruitment on the post of Constable is given in Sub-clause (b) of the Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989 and the minimum age prescribed is 18 years and the upper age limit is of 21 years on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. However, the upper age-limit for Constable (Driver) is 24 years. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, a candidate possessing additional qualification of driving vehicle can be given appointment till he attains the age of 24 years. THE relaxation of age limit given in sub-clause (b) of the Rule 11 of the Rules is wrongly interpreted by the respondents by treating Constable (Driver) as a separate post. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, though petitioners were initially appointed Constables in the Armed Police by the appointment order (placed by the respondents at page No. 69 of the paper book), but their services were transferred from the Armed Police to Civil Police by order dated 12th Dec. , 1992 (Annex. 1 ). It is also submitted that seniority lists were issued for the Constable Civil Police and the petitioners' names were very much there in the seniority list of Constable (CP ). In support of this, the petitioners placed on record the copy of the seniority list, which was existing on 1. 04. 1999. Even the petitioners were given permission to appear in the qualifying examinations for promotional post of Head Constable vide orders dated 1. 1. 1998 (Annex. 4), 22. 6. 1998 (Annex. 5) and 20. 11. 1999 (Annex. 6 ). Before qualifying exams could take place, a list was published containing the names of eligible candidates in which petitioners' name were not included, therefore, one of the petitioners protested vide his letter dated 27. 12. 1999 (Annex. 7) and requested that his name be included in the said list of eligible candidate, who can appear for qualifying examination for the post of Head Constable. THE petitioner in the writ petition submitted that though he was, in the year 1999, attached to the MT section of Police Lines, Ganganagar (Driver) (Annex. 8) but it cannot change petitioner's designation of Constable (CP) to Constable (Driver ). According to learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners are holding the post of Constable (CP) and they were wrongly denied the opportunity to take qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Head Constable (CP ). THErefore, the respondents be directed to invite the petitioners to take qualifying examination for the post of Head Constable Civil Police and be given appointment as per their merits qua who have been promoted by the examination held on 26th Dec. , 1999.