- (1.) ALL the review petitions have been heard finally.
(2.) THESE are the cases where selection for promotion to the post of Head Constable was conducted on 19.10.2010. Petitioners appeared in the selection and result was declared on 22.10.2010. The Director General of Police (DGP) then cancelled the selection by invoking provisions of rule 33(2) of the Rajasthan Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules of 1989'). This is precisely on the ground that one of the members of the selection board remained absent thus selection aforesaid was not found to be as per rules. Writ petitions were earlier dismissed after perusal of record. Therein, factual report called from the competent authority was looked into wherein various facts concerned to the illegalities and corruption in the selection were found. Taking it to be serious, writ petitions were dismissed on that ground. Petitioners then preferred appeals and sought withdrawal with liberty to prefer review petitions. Accordingly, these review petitions have been filed. Learned counsel for review petitioners submits that all the members of the selection board participated in the selection process. Referring to various documents on record, it is submitted that these documents have been issued by the Member Secretary of the selection board thus he had actively participated in the selection. Absence of one of the members of the selection board cannot vitiate the selection. This is more so when serious allegations exist against respondent No.3, who was instrument in getting selection cancelled as his favourite candidates could not find place in the selection. This court dismissed the writ petitions after perusal of the record, however, a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioners for their perusal. Even no enquiry as per rules was conducted in the matter thus this court should not have noticed enquiry report to hold cancellation of selection to be justified. It is accordingly prayed that review petitions may be allowed and matter may be heard afresh and taking note of discriminatory and arbitrariness act of the respondent No.3, impugned order cancelling the selection may be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that cancellation of selection is vide order dated 23.11.2010. The reason of cancellation is due to absence of one of the members of the selection board. The court, while hearing the petitions, called for the record to see as to whether cancellation of selection was on the aforesaid ground alone or for other reasons. The respondents then produced the record before this court wherein apart from absence of one of the members of the selection board in the selection, various facts came to the notice of the court pursuant to the enquiry report wherein serious allegations existed against none else but the Chairman of the selection board. Thus, the selection was not found to be fair and proper. The court rightly dismissed the writ petitions, however, review petitions are now being pressed that the sole ground to cancel the selection is absence of one of the members of the selection board. If the aforesaid ground is also looked into in reference to rule 27 of the Rules of 1989, the impugned order is sustainable. As per rule, selection board has to be constituted for the post of Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector. Clause (e) of rule 27 provides for constitution of selection board. The board was accordingly constituted, however, looking to the misdeed of the then Chairman of the selection board, one of the members of the selection board had to disassociate himself. Taking note of over all circumstances, selection was rightly cancelled and now the selection is scheduled to be held soon, for which applications have already been called.
(3.) I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of the impugned order cancelling the selection reveals absence of one member of the selection board thus selection was not held to be legal and proper, accordingly, selection was cancelled. The power to cancel the selection was invoked by the DGP under rule 33(2) of the Rules of 1989, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference - "Rule 33(2). If on receipt of information or on the basis of an enquiry, the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police is satisfied that the proceedings of a Board have not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of these Rules or orders and instructions issued in accordance with these rules or in just and fair manner, he may set aside the proceedings of such Board and may constitute a fresh Board for that purpose." Perusal of the above provision shows authority of DGP to cancel selection in the circumstances mentioned therein. The language of the rule suggest that if on receipt of information or on the basis of an enquiry, DGP is satisfied that the selection is not properly conducted in accordance with the rules or orders or instructions, he may set aside the proceedings and constitute a fresh board for the purpose. ;