R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, since they had killed a famous decoit, "Banno Gurjar" in a free fight between the Police and the decoits, they were not only given "Gallantry Award", but were also nominated for Promotion Cadre Course ('PCC, for short) against the vacancies of 2002 -03. The petitioners underwent the said PCC. However, while others were promoted against the vacancies of the year 2002 -03, due to the code of conduct being in force, the petitioners could not be given the said promotion. Eventually, the petitioners were promoted on the post of Head Constable on 05.04.2004 after a clearance was given by the Chief Election Officer. On 12.11.2009, vacancies for the post of ASI were advertised, since the petitioners were eligible for the said post, they applied for the said promotion. However, their candidacy was not considered ostensibly on the ground they were four days short of experience as required on 01.04.2009. It is the petitioners' case that had they been promoted, on 03.03.2003 as their colleague was promoted, they certainly would have possessed the requisite experience. According to the petitioners, they cannot be deprived of the right of consideration on the ground that they are short of four days of requisite experience as the fault does not lie on their part, but the fault lies on the part of respondents. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(2.) VIDE order dated 27.11.2009, this Court had directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection process. Consequently, the petitioners were permitted to participate in the selection process. However, the results of the selection process were kept in sealed cover envelope. Vide order dated 16th March, 2010, this Court directed the respondents to produce the results before this Court. Consequently, the results have been produced today before this Court. According to the results, the petitioners have, indeed, qualified in the selection process. Admittedly, the persons who are similarly situated as the petitioners were promoted vide order dated 03.03.2003; admittedly, the only reason for not promoting the petitioners was the fact that the code of conduct had come into effect. Therefore, the petitioners' non -promotion was not due to a fault on their part, but was due to fortuitous circumstances of a code of conduct coming in their way. Admittedly, they were subsequently promoted vide order dated 05.04.2004 after getting the clearance from the Chief Election Officer. Had the clearance come prior to 05.04.2004, naturally, the petitioners would have been promoted earlier then 05.04.2004. Thus, it is the case of grave hardship that the petitioners are being ousted from the promotion for no fault of their own, but only because of bureaucratic inefficiency. Considering the fact that the petitioners have qualified in the selection process, the lack of four days of experience should not be permitted to become an obstacle in their promotion to the post of ASI.
(3.) LOOKING to the peculiar circumstance of this case, this Court directs the respondents to promote the petitioners on the post of ASI as they have qualified in the selection process. This Court is informed that the training of PCC begin today. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to undergo the necessary training.;