GULAM MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated August 31, 1971, whereby he dismissed in limine the appellant's petition challenging his reversion in a Civil post under Art. 226 of the Constution.

(2.) GULAM Mohammed, the appellant before us, was appointed as a constable in the Police Department an November 6, 1950. He was promoted to the post of a Head Constable on February 24, 1956. GULAM Mohammed passed the qualifying examination as provided under Rule 23 (1) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called the Rules) and he was placed at number 10 in the list published on September 11, 1967. Despite two attempts in 1969 and 1970 GULAM Mohammed was unable to pass the promotion cadre course examination. At that point of time he was officiating as a Sub-Inspector but he came to be reverted on April 4, 1970. His representation against his reversion succeeded and he was promoted again on January 22, 1971, to officiate as Sub-Inspector of Police. But on May 2, 1971, he was again reverted. He submitted a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before this Court praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other direction against the State of Rajasthan, the Inspector General of Police and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C. I. D. (Criminal Branch) not to revert him from the post of Sub-Inspector and to permit him to appear at the promotion cadre course examination again. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition in limine on the grounds that because GULAM Mohammed had failed at the promotion cadre courses examination, his reversion was proper and and further because nobody could, as of right, claim that he must be given a temporary or officiating appointment under Rule 31 of the Rules despite his failure to pass the promotion cadre courses examination twice. In regard to the respondents Khumandas and Indermal (respondents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively), the learned single Judge observed that the temporary appointments of these respondents was characterised by the learned counsel for the appellant GULAM Mohammed, to be contrary to the Rules and if it was so, the appellant could not expect the Court to make an illegal order in his favour in contravention of the rules. Dissatisfied GULAM Mohammed has come up in appeal.

(3.) RULE 28 of the RULEs reads under : - "28. Failure at the qualifying and promotion cadre courses examination.- (1) A candidate who appear fails at a qualifying examination will be allowed to re-appear at the next examination provided that if he fails at the next examination also, he shall be debarred from appearing at the qualifying examination for the following two years. (2) A candidate who fails to complete a promotion cadre course shall be eligible to reat the promotion Cadre Course examination immediately following the examination at which he has failed, provided that if no examination is held within one year of his failure a special Examination may be conducted for the purposes. " The aforesaid rule is clearly divided into two parts. The first part relates to the qualifying examination. A candidate failing at this examination in allowed to reappear at the next examination. But if he fails at the next examination also, the rule requires him to rest, presumably for self improvement and preparation, for a period of two years before he is permitted to make a fresh attempt. Sub-rule (2) speaks of the promotion cadre course examination. A candidate who fails to complete a promotion cadre course shall be eligible to reappeer at the promotion Cadre Course examination immediately following the examination at which he has failed. If no examination is held within one year of his failure a special examination may be conducted for the purpose. Evidently, there is no provision for any increased interval after two failures as is the case in qualifying examination and there is no restriction against re-appearance. The interpretation as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition and in the answer of the Inspector General of placing a restriction on the third reappearance of Gulam Mohammed in the promotion cadre course examination unless the appellant appears again at the qualifying examination is not justified by language of the RULEs. The interpretation put by the Inspector General of Police is clearly erroneous. Nobody is authorised to interpolate words born of imagination in a statutory rule and invent restrictions when none are authorised by the language of the RULE. We could, therefore, appreciate the discomfiture of the learned Additional Government Advocate when he was unable to support this interpretation of the Inspector General of Police.