M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions raise common questions and arise out of the same facts so they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE petitioner Pratap Singh joined the Police Department as Constable on 23 -11 -1965 and the other petitioner Man Singh joined the Police Department as Constable on 29 -8 -1969. On 4 -12 -1974 the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur issued a notice mentioning that under the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules and Standing Order No. 7 -66, a list of the Constables is to be prepared for promotion cadre course of Head Constables and individual applications were invited for the examinations to beheld in January, 1975. Another notice Exhibit 2 was issued on 4 -1 -1975 under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to be rules) for the same purpose. The petitioners sent their applications. A Board was formed consisting of the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Udaipur (West) and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur as contemplated by Rule 24(3) and qualifying examinations were held under Rule 26 of the Rules. According to the petitioners, they passed the qualifying examination for promotion in both Parts I and II and their names were entered in the list prepared by the Board under Rule 24(1). The petitioner Pratap Singh's name appears at serial No. 10 whereas Man Singh's name appears at serial No. 20 of the said list marked as Ex. 3. The result of the Board was conveyed by the Superintendent of Police by notification dated 3 -3 -1975, in which names of 25 Constables appeared as candidates having qualified for the Promotion Cadre Course. The petitioner's further case is that the Superintendent of Police however, issued another selection list dated 25 -3 -75 vide D.D.B. No. 351 mentioning only nine names and it was stated that only nine persons have qualified for the promotion cadre course. The revised list is Ex. 3A. The petitioners have challenged the revised list and have stated that some Constables have been promoted on the post of Head Constables on ad hoc basis, though they were junior to the petitioners and their names were below the petitioners' name in the approved list (Ex. 3) and some of the Constables who have not even been selected vide approved list Ex. 3 were also given ad hoc promotion, while ignoring the petitioners vide office order dated 25 -7 -1975 (Ex. 6). The petitioners challenged the revised list on the ground slated in para 11 of the writ petition. The petitioners prayed that the respondents be directed to abide by the list dated 3 -3 -1975 (Ex. 3) and to quash the list dated 25 -3 -75 (Ex. 3A). The respondents be further directed to give promotions to the petitioners to the post of Head Constables as and when a vacancy arises and the respondent be further restrained from holding any examinations, interviews and from inviting any further applications under Rules 24 and 26 for the purposes of preparing a list of persons for promotion to the post of the Head Constables till the list dated 3 -3 -1975 is exhausted. It was also prayed that subsequent notifications dated 13 -8 -75 and 1 -11 -75 be also quashed.
(3.) REPLY to the writ petition was filed by the respondents. The respondents' case as pleaded in the reply is that originally 6 vacancies for the post of Head Constables were determined under Rule 9. The Assistant Sub -Inspectors of Police were attached to the Circle Officer and it was estimated that consequent upon re -organisation of Police, the Assistant Sub -Inspectors of Police were to be replaced by Head Constables. Consequently it was estimated that the vacancies may be about 17 in number, according to which the Board prepared a list of 25 candidates under Rule 24(2). Subsequently it was discovered (hat the effective vacancies as determined under Rule 9 will be 6 only and not 17 so a revised list was prepared and according to the revised list nine candidates' names were entered in the list in order of seniority. Under the rules, the Board could prepare a list upto one and half times of the number of vacancies. The earlier list prepared and published on 3 -3 -1975 was superseded according to law. The Board in its meeting dated 17 -3 -75 had cancelled the list prepared on 3 -3 -75 which was duly notified by the Superintendent of Police on 7 -4 -75.;