Sita Ram and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sandeep Mehta, J.—Arguments were heard on the application for interim relief submitted by the petitioners alongwith the above writ petition.

The petitioners are all Sub Inspectors working in the respondent Police Department, who crave promotion on the posts of Inspectors. A number of Sub Inspectors in the respondent Police Department approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by way of separate appeals being aggrieved of the action of the respondents in making incorrect determination of the vacancies for promotions to the posts of the Inspectors of the Police. The appellants before the Tribunal alleged that they were not included in the select list prepared by the department for promotion inspite of passing the qualifying exam. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by order dated 29.11.2013 declaring that the mode of determining the vacancies by the respondent Police Department was not in accordance with the procedure established by the service Rules and was thus totally illegal. The respondents were directed to redetermine the yearwise vacancies and grant promotion to the concerned persons as per their entitlement. The Tribunal''s order was challenged by the Director General of Police and the respondent Police Department before the learned Single Bench at Jaipur Bench of this Court by preferring writ petitions. Three private persons also preferred writ petitions challenging the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Tribunal. The writ petitions came to be allowed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.5.2015 with the following directions:-

"25. In the aforesaid premises, following directions are given:-

(i) The petitioners are directed to redetermine yearwise vacancies for the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, considering the position as on 1st April 2013, in accordance with Rule-10 of the said Rules, and as per the observations made hereinabove, within one month from today.

(ii) The petitioners after redetermination of the vacancies for the said years shall immediately start the process of filling up the said vacancies by conducting the qualifying examination of the eligible candidates as per the said Rules, and shall prepare fresh select lists for each year separately keeping in view the number of vacancies in that year and considering only those Sub-Inspectors who were eligible for promotion in that particular year.

(iii) It is further directed that while undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the promotions already made on 88 posts of Inspectors against the vacancies of 2011-12 shall not be disturbed.

(iv) Since the respondents have already cleared the qualifying examinations conducted by the petitioners, they shall be accommodated in the fresh select lists of promotions that may be prepared for the respective years, as per their eligibility and seniority, and as per the vacancies available in the said years.

(v) The notification dated 16.8.13 is set aside.

(vi) It is expected that the petitioners shall determine and fill up the vacancies for the years 2014-15 onwards strictly in accordance with the said Rules, and as per the observations made in this judgment."

Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents redetermined the vacancies for the promotion years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and conducted a combined qualifying test, wherein the petitioners too participated and failed. They have now approached this Court claiming that the respondents were required to determine yearwise vacancies and to hold separate tests for each promotional year.

As per the petitioners, by conducting a single qualifying test, the vacancies of three years were clubbed together and thereby, the respondents have deprived the petitioners of two distinct attempts at the qualifying test. As per the petitioners, in the event of failing the qualifying test for the year 2011-12, they are entitled to two more attempts in fresh qualifying tests which are required to be held separately for the next two years'' vacancies. Thus, it is asserted that the procedure adopted by the respondents in holding a combined qualifying exam caused severe prejudice to the petitioners. The petitioners crave that the respondents be restrained from filling up the vacancies on the posts of Inspectors for the promotion years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and to direct them to hold two separate qualifying exams for these promotion years.

Shri M.R. Singhvi, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri S. Maheshwari vehemently contended that the further process of filling the posts by promotion against the vacancies of 2012-13 and 2013-14 should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the writ petition because if the vacancies are filled in on the basis of the single test conducted by the respondents, the petitioners will be left remediless. As per Shri Singhvi, the respondents have acted in total disregard to the directions given by this Court in its order dated 26.5.2015 while deciding the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions. As per him, the impugned action is also contrary to the mandatory requirements of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules. Learned counsel contended that the respondents are not authorized to grant promotion against the vacancies of the year 2012-13/2013-14 without holding fresh and separate qualifying examinations for each year''s vacancies.

Per contra, Shri P.S. Bhati, learned AAG representing the respondent Police Department and Shri Kuldeep Mathur, learned counsel representing the successful candidates in the qualifying exam held in the year 2015 submitted that the action of the respondents in holding a single qualifying exam cannot be termed as clubbing of the vacancies. Dr. Bhati candidly conceded that the department inadvertently committed procedural errors in not determining the yearwise vacancies and that is why, the litigation ensued. As per him, the petitioners cannot claim to be prejudiced by the combined exam for the promotion years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. He contended that the petitioners have been provided two opportunities of appearing in the qualifying exam and failed. In the current exam, held in the year 2015, all the petitioners participated and failed. Only the petitioner Babu Singh participated in the first test. Dr. Bhati submitted that the qualifying exam is conducted just in order to ensure that the aspirants reach a particular bench mark. It is not a competitive exam and thus, no prejudice would cause to anyone by holding a joint exam for three years'' vacancies. Thus, as per Dr. Bhati, the petitioners are estopped from raising any grievance regarding the joint qualifying exam.

Shri Shobhit Tiwari, learned counsel representing the applicants partly supported the arguments advanced by Shri Singhvi.

I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

It is an admitted position that the petitioners have already been provided two chances at the qualifying exam for promotion to the posts of Inspectors of Police. In the earlier attempt, despite available opportunity, the petitioners other than Babu Singh did not participate. The promotional process for the posts of Inspectors in the department was stagnating for a long time owing to improper determination of vacancies. Large scale litigation ensued and finally, the Court directed the respondents to determine the yearwise vacancies for the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and to fill such vacancies as per law. The mode of conducting a combined qualifying exam was adopted by the respondents in order to ensure that the three years'' backlog is cleared after which the promotional process can be streamlined and be carried on thereafter strictly as per the Rules. On going through the relevant provisions of the Rules, which prescribe for the mode of conducting the qualifying exam, this Court is totally satisfied that the qualifying exam does not require any competition amongst the candidates. The candidates are required to achieve a particular bench mark in academic as well as physical standards. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to any candidate including the petitioners if the qualifying exam is held amongst persons acquiring seniority in different years. That apart, as has been admitted by Shri Singhvi and as is apparent from the record submitted for perusal of the Court by Dr. Bhati earlier too, the petitioners got an opportunity to participate in the qualifying exam conducted on 2/3.7.2013. Only Babu Singh appeared in the qualifying exam but was unsuccessful. The other petitioners, despite availability of opportunity chose not to appear in the qualifying exam. It is further noteworthy that the order dated 26.5.2015 passed at the Jaipur Bench in the bunch of writ petitions has been challenged before the Hon''ble Division Bench by filing D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 694/2015, wherein the Hon''ble Division Bench has passed the following order on 3.8.2015:-

"Let a reply be filed by the State-respondents within four weeks. The rejoinder-reply will be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List on 06.10.2015.

It is made clear that we have not passed any interim orders in these cases."

In this background, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason to stay the process of promotion being undertaken by the respondents for filling the vacancies in the cadre of Inspectors of Police.

Consequently, the stay application is dismissed.