Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 11.5.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 19.4.2002 (Annex. 6) passed by the respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Sirohi by which respondents No. 6 and 7 Kanaram and Babulal respectively and others were given promotions from the post of Constable to Head Constable, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to conduct fresh selections for the post of Head Constable for the vacancies of the year, 2002.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows: Facts pertaining to petitioner No. 1 Amraram The petitioner No. 1 Amraram was appointed in the Rajasthan Police on the post of Constable w.e.f. 10.11.1979 and since then he is serving the Department with utmost dedication and satisfaction to his higher authorities and he is presently posted under the respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police District Sirohi. The case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Sirohi issued provisional seniority list dated 1.4.2000 (Annex. 1) which was ultimately finalised and the petitioner No. 1 stands at serial No. 100. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police invited applications for the post of Head Constable from amongst the eligible senior most candidates and in pursuance of that, the petitioner No. 1 being eligible also applied for the promotion test which was to be held on 18.3.2001. According to the petitioner No. 1, there were 13 vacancies available for the year 2001 -2002 and, therefore, 78 candidates were called for the promotion test, as per the criteria adopted for the promotion. A copy of the order showing that there were 13 vacancies and 78 eligible candidates were called upon for the promotion test is marked as Annex. 2. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that he appeared in the departmental promotion examination conducted under the Chairmanship of the respondent No. 3 Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur and he got through in the written examination and thereafter, he appeared for interview and other physical examination. But, surprisingly the Selection Board selected only two candidates for the promotion to the post of Head Constable and 11 vacancies were kept unfilled. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the respondent No. 6 Kanaram was appointed on the post of Constable with effect from 5.12.1991 in Bharatpur Range under the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur from where he was transferred to Dholpur, Alwar, Jaipur and then at Pali which is his home District. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the respondent No. 7 Babulal was initially appointed on the post of Constable in the Kota Range under the Superintendent of Police, Kota with effect from 5.12.1991 from where he was transferred to Jaipur and then to Pali which is also his home District. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that though he qualified the written examination, but he was not promoted to the post of Head Constable. According to the petitioner No. 1, the respondent No. 5 Pukhraj Sirvi, Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur with a view to make promotions of respondents No. 6 and 7 Kanaram and Babulal, who are respectively brother's son and son of sister -in -law of respondent No. 5, managed to transfer them to the District Sirohi and furthermore, the respondent No. 5 Pukhraj Sirvi managed not to fill in 11 vacancies and, therefore, the selections of the respondents No. 6 and 7 Kanaram and Babulal respectively were made against the rules and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that since the respondents No. 6 and 7 were transferred in the District of Sirohi, therefore, they got better seniority in the District Sirohi and had they would have been kept in Pali, they would have not been promoted and furthermore, the Chairman of the Interview Board for viva -voce test was respondent No. 5 Pukhraj Sirvi, Dy. Inspector General of Police and since the respondents No. 6 and 7 were close relatives of the respondent No. 5, therefore, the promotions of the respondents No. 6 and 7 deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. Case of petitioner No. 2 Gajraj Singh
(3.) SO far as the case of the petitioner No. 2 Gajraj Singh is concerned, it may be stated here that he did not qualify the written test and therefore, he was not called for interview. Hence, it has been submitted by the petitioners that whole selection for promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable, which was made by the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5, was illegal, arbitrary and against the Rules and was made with a view to favour the respondents No. 6 and 7 and even irregularities have been committed by the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 while conducting the written examination and, therefore, whole selection should be quashed and set aside. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4. The respondent No. 5 Pukhraj Sirvi, Dy. Inspector General of Police has also filed a separate reply. In the reply, it was submitted that the criteria for promotion to the post of Head Constables has been laid down under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1989") and according to the said criteria, the recruitment process shall be held in two stages. In Part -I stage, a candidate will be required to appear in the written examination and if he secures minimum 40% marks, he qualifies for the Parade and Practical and other out -door tests, wherein also he is required to secure minimum 40% marks. Part -II stage of examination consists of record and interview. However, a candidate securing 45% marks in aggregate in written examination and Parade and practical qualifies for interview, which is called Part -II stage. It was further submitted by the respondents that so far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, he did not qualify in Part -I stage and, therefore, he was not called for interview, but there is no dispute on the point that the petitioner No. 1 qualified the written test and thus, he was called for interview. The further case of the respondents is that in Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989, the composition of the Selection Board for making promotion to the post of Head Constable has been provided and according to Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989, for promotion to the post of Head Constable, the Selection Board shall consist of: (i) Dy. I.G., Police - -Chairman (ii) Superintendent of Police/Commandant of the District/Unit concerned. - -Member (iii) One Addl. S.P. outside the range concerned to be nominate by the D.G.P. - -Member Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that there is no dispute on the point that the respondents No. 6 and 7 are close relatives of the respondent No. 5 Pukhraj Sirvi, Dy. Inspector General of Police, who was Chairman of the Selection Board. The further case of the respondents is that since as per Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989, Dy. Inspector General of Police could only be the Chairman, because of the doctrine of necessity, there being only one Dy. Inspector General of Police in that range, therefore, the respondent No. 5 had to preside over the Selection Board. The further case of the respondents is that a person, who qualifies the written examination is called for interview and in part -II stage, the assessment of the candidate is based on record and interview. A copy of the syllabus issued by the Director General of Police is marked as Annex. R. 5/1. The "Record" of a candidate is examined under various heads i.e. (i) Education, (ii) Annual remarks in service rolls; (iii) Rewards and punishments, (iv) Training and (v) Sports. Under these heads the record consists of 60 marks and only 15 marks have been earmarked for interview. Thus, a candidate is required to secure a minimum 19 marks out of 60 in the service record even if he is able to secure 15 out of 15 marks in the interview because according to the the scheme of selection, a candidate is required to secure minimum 33.75 marks out of 75 marks under the head Service Record and Interview. So far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he was able to secure 18 marks out of 60 marks for the service record and he was awarded 13 marks out of 15 marks in the interview, which makes the total at 31 and even if he was awarded 15 marks out of 15 marks in the interview, still he would have secured 33 marks which is 0.75 below the minimum marks and thus, even if the petitioner No. 1 would have been awarded 15 marks out of 15 marks in the interview, he would have still not found place in the select list. The further case of the respondents is that when the petitioner No. 1 has not been able to get minimum required marks in the service record, his result in selection is not in any way affected on the basis of the marks obtained by him at the interview. On the contrary, if the case of the respondents No. 6 and 7 is taken, they not only qualified the written examination and parade, but they were able to secure 37 marks and 35 marks respectively under the head "Service Record" and even if they were awarded "zero" mark at the interview, they would have still found place in the select list as there was no requirement for seeking minimum marks in the interview. Thus, the interview in no way has materially affected the result either of the petitioner No. 1 or of the respondents No. 6 and 7 and in these circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed.;