J PREM DAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these nineteen writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the validity and correctness of orders Ex. /p4 dated July 6, 1976 and Ex. P/ 5 dated November 21, 1981 passed by the Commandant, 6th Batallion, Jodhpur, whereby they were asked to re-appear in the qualifying examination for promotion to the posts of Head-Constable under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Rules' ). Since, the grounds taken in all these petitions are identical, they were heard together and are disposed off by a common order.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioners is that at the relevant times, they were holding the post of Constable in the 6th Batallion and were qualified for promotion to the post of Head Constable. THE Board constituted under the Rules conducted the qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Head Constable in 1976. THE petitioners appeared in that examination and being successful, their names appeared in the list of suitable candidates prepared under sub rule (2) of rule 24 of the Rules. THE total number of vacancies available for promotion was 51. Out of the aforesaid list, as many as 27 (being at S No. 1 to 27 in the list) were promoted and appointed on the post of Head Constable without any condition by the appointing authority viz. the Commandant by his order dated July 6, 1976. THE petitioners were also promoted as Head Constables on July 6, 1976 by the Commandant, but on temporary basis and with condition that they would again appear in the qualifying examination to come in the approved list for absorption in regular Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Batallion. Subsequently, on November 21, 1981, the Commandant by his letter Ex. P/5 invited applications from the eligible candidates including those holding the post of Head Constable on Ad hoc basis (i. e. the petitioners) to appear in the qualifying examination. THE grievance of the petitioners is that the condition imposed on their promotion to the post of Head Constable and requiring them to appear again in the qualifying examination, is illegal and unjust. Various reasons have been advanced to show that the impugned orders Ex P/4 and Ex. P/5 passed by the Commandant in this respect, are contrary to the provisions of the Rules.

(3.) SUB-rule (2) of rule 24 of the Rules relating to the making a list of suitable candidates, after conducting interviews, reads as under:- " (2) The Boards constituted under this Rule shall consider the cases of all the persons included in the list, interviewing all of them and shall prepare a list containing names of suitable candidates in order of Seniority, who secure 45 per-cent marks in qualifying examination Part-II and 50 percent aggregate of the total marks of the qualifying examination Part I & II upto one and half times and number of such posts as determined to be filled under rule 9. "