AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
28 paragraphs · 396 wordsIt is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
issue raised in the present writ petition is no more res integra as
the said issue has been repeatedly decided by this Court. Reliance
in this regard is placed on the order dated 2.9.2016, passed in
Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors .:S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 13434/2015, wherein relying on judgment in the case of
Gokul Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors .: 2002(3) WLC (Raj.) 97
and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16083/2015 (Devendra Prasad &
Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 2nd February, 2016
at Jaipur Bench, it was directed as under:
"The respondents are directed to relate back promotion of the petitioners from the post of Constable to the post of Head Constable to the corresponding year of vacancies i.e. Year 2011/12 (in the case of Ashok Kumar) and Year 2010-11 (in the case of Girdhari Lal Parmar). Thereafter, counting their experience as Head Constables from such dates, the petitioners shall be considered for promotion on the posts of Assistant Sub Inspector by treating them to be holding the requisite experience of three years as required under Rule 26 and Schedule appended to the Rules of 1989. The petitioners shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. Stay petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. "
Learned counsel for the respondents is not in position to
controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner is allowed with the following directions:
The respondents are directed to relate back promotion of
the petitioner from the post of Constable to the post of Head
Constable to the corresponding year of vacancies i.e. Year 09- 10.
Thereafter, counting his experience as Head Constables from such
dates, the petitioner shall be considered for promotion on the
post of Assistant Sub Inspector by treating him to be holding the
requisite experience of three years as required under Rule 26 and
Schedule appended to the Rules of 1989. The petitioner shall also
be entitled to all consequential benefits.
It is made clear that in case the petitioner has not been
subjected to required process, he would now be subjected to the
process required for promotion in accordance with law.