DURGA SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents conducted process of selection for the purpose of promotion to the post of Head Constable (General) against the vacancies of the year 2004 -05. Being eligible, the petitioner faced selection proceedings and in the list of qualified incumbents his name was placed at serial No. 31, whereas one Shri Tarachand, Constable 824 was placed at serial No. 26. By a letter dated 22.2.2005 the Tarachand was not eligible to be considered for promotion in view of the Government of Rajasthan's circular dated 13.8.2004, which prescribes that the candidates having more than two children born on or after 1.6.2002 shall not be eligible to be considered for promotion. By acting upon the complaint submitted by the petitioner, name of Shri Tarachand was deleted from the list of qualified incumbents. By an office order dated 14.6.2005 the Commandant, II -Battalion, RAC, ordered for remitting 15 selected persons to undergo promotion cadre course. The name of the petitioner was not shown in the list aforesaid and it was communicated to him under a letter dated 29.7.2005 that against 10 vacancies a list of 15 persons was prepared, however, on deletion of name of any person no new person can be added as the rules do not provide for the same. Being aggrieved by it, this petition for writ is preferred.

(2.) THIS Court vide order dated 23.8.2005 while admitting the writ petition for hearing as an interim measure directed the respondents to send the petitioner for promotion cadre course provisionally. It is informed to the Court by counsel for the petitioner that in pursuant to the interim order aforesaid the petitioner has already undergone the promotion cadre course, however, the promotion is not yet been accorded to him.

(3.) THE main contention of Shri Kuldeep Mathur, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that Shri Tarachand was erroneously considered by the respondents and if his candidature would have been rejected at inception then the petitioner could have been placed in the select list and he would have been sent for promotion cadre course. The petitioner has been denied from his right to be appointed as Head Constable by way of promotion for a fault of the respondents themselves. It is also stated by counsel for the petitioner that in similar circumstances this Court in Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in, 2005 (9) RDD 3594 (Raj), held as follows: