VINEET KOTHARI, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition pertains to selection or appointment of the petitioner in pursuance of Advertisement dated 09.04.2007 for the post of Sub -Inspector (Armed Police), Platoon Commandar (Sub - Inspector, RAC), Sub -inspector, (Mewar Bhil Corps or MBC).
(2.) THE learned counsel for the parties at bar submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Jai Kishan Soni V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. - SBCWP No.3905/2013 ­ decided on 22.4.2014, in which this Court has held as under: "12. It is true and undisputed that these 3 posts are separate and different cadre posts as per Schedule -I of the Rules of 1989. A perusal of said Schedule -I would indicate that Section -I thereof encadres the Armed Police, Civil Police, Intelligence Brnach and Gbeneral Duties (other than Operators/Technicians) of the Tele -Communications Directorate in which Senior post of Inspector, Sub - Inspector, Assistant Sub -Inspector and Head Constables are given,while junior post of Constable is given. In Section II - Mewar Bhil Corps, the senior posts of Inspector, Sub -Inspector, Head Constable are given, while the junior post of Constable is given. In Section - III ­ Police Tele -Communications, the posts of Inspector, Inspector (Tele -Communication), Sub -Inspector, Supervisor Operator/Technician, Sub Inspector (Operator), Sub -Inspector (Cipher), Sub -Inspector (Technician), , Sub -Inspector (Fitter/Electrician), Assistant Sub -Inspector (Operator), Assistant Sub - Inspector (Cipher), Assistant Sub -Inspector (Technician), Assistant Sub -Inspector (Fitter/Electrician), Head Constable (Technician), Head Constable other than Operator/Technician, Head Constable (Operator) are given, while the junior posts of Constable (Technician/Operator) and Constable other than Operator/Technician are included. In Section IV - Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, senior posts of Company Commander (Inspector), Platoon Commander (Sub - Inspector), Head Constable and Junior post of Constables are included The other columns of said Schedule -I provide for the source of direct recruitment, qualification for direct recruitment, post from which appointment by promotion is to be made, minimum qualification and experience required for promotion and remarks. 13. Thus, the said Schedule -I makes it clear that these 3 different posts for which selection process are held under the Advertisement dtd.09.07.2004 are separate cadre posts. Rule 23 of the Rules of 1989 is also quoted below for ready reference which empowers the Commission to hold such selection processes and make recommendations to the appointing authorities: "23. Recommendations of the Board/Commission : - The Board/Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates, whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post of concerned, arranged in order of merit, and forward the same to the Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police, who shall in his turn intimate to the Appointing Authority concerned, the name of the candidates in order of merit as mentioned in the list, upto the number of vacancies available. The Board, Commission shall not recommend candidates, who have secured less than 36% marks in interview and 45% marks in the aggregate. Provided that the Recruitment Board/Commission may recommend candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, who though failing to obtain the minimum marks, are declared by the Board to be suitable for appointment to the service with the regard to the maintenance of efficiency of administration, if the candidates secure 30% marks in interview and 40% marks in the aggregate." 14. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that these three posts are different cadre posts and merely because common selection process/written tests was held, the same can not be inter - changeable or inter -transferable posts since different training is given for the candidates to the appointed in different categories or different posts has substance and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner vide Annex.2 dtd.12.8.2011 in the category of Sub -Inspector (Armed Police) according to his raw marks at 285 was perfectly in order and justified. That was not even intended to be disturbed by the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) as quoted above. The said judgment will show that the learned Single Judge took all care to save the appointments already made and the appointment now to be offered by way of relief granted to the petitioners before this court in the batch of writ petitions in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) was to be given against the future vacancies only without disturbing the selection and appointments already made. 15. The judgment -in -rem to the extent of declaring scaling of marks as illegal in terms of Supreme Court decision in the case of Sanjay Singh V/s U.P. Public Service Commission (supra) was definitely to be applied uniformly to all the categories. The respondents have apparently misunderstood this legal principle and while giving relief to the petitioners before this Court in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra), they have appointed these persons in the category of Sub -Inspector (Armed Police) without taking a note of the fact that their raw marks are less than the persons already appointed in that category like the present petitioner and as the learned counsel for the petitioner has shown from the impugned order Annex.5 dtd.22.3.2013 that persons later on given appointment under order Annex.5 dtd.22.3.2013 though have raw marks 281, 280 and 277 and like that, less than the raw marks of 285 obtained by the petitioner, have been appointed in the category of Sub -inspector (Armed Police), while to make way for them the persons like the present petitioner with higher raw marks have been shifted in the second part of the order Annex.5 dtd.22.3.213 from Sub -Inspector (Armed Police) to Platoon Commander (RAC) category against their preference and desire and also the fact that they were so selected and rightly appointed in the category of Sub -inspector (Armed Police) vide order Annex.2 dtd.12.06.2011. 16. Thus the purported exercise by the respondents to give effect to the judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) is apparently even contrary to the judgment itself, but the revised list made by the Respondents taking into account only the raw marks was ignored in order to give appointment to the petitioners before this Court in Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) misconstruing the last part of the order that the relief is restricted to the petitioners only, the respondents have taken it as if all those petitioners before this Court in the case of Ramnaryan Bhanwaria (supra) on the basis of their raw marks have to be offered the appointment irrespective of the fact that the persons with higher raw marks are already appointed in the cadre post of Sub -Inspector (Armed Police) like the present petitioner and petitioner's cadre was changed in the second part of the impugned order Annex.5 dtd.22.3.2013 while he was shifted from the category of Sub -Inspector (Armed Police) to the category of Platoon Commander (RAC). Even, in rem part of the judgment in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) where the learned Single Judge following the Supreme Court Judge in the case of Sanjay Singh V/s U.P. Public Service Commission (supra) held that scaled marks have to be ignored as scaling in the subject like Hindi was illegal but appointments were to be offered without disturbing the appointments already made and only against the future vacancies taking into account the raw marks of such petitioners only and relief to that extent was restricted only to the petitioners before this Court at that point of time.This mis -application of the judgment by the respondents is precisely the issue sought to be corrected by the present petitioner in the present writ petition. 17. Saving of appointment of the petitioner was already done by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) as quoted above, but that finding of learned Single Judge seems to have been forgotten by the respondents while passing the impugned order Annex.5 dtd.3905/2013 specially para 2 thereof and thus adversely effecting the present petitioner. The learned Single Judge in that case has also directed that the appointment now to be offerred in pursuance of the judgment in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra) rendered on 20.09.2011 has to be given against the future vacancies and therefore, there was no question of changing the cadre of the present petitioner in the purported exercise of giving effect to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramnarayan Bhanwaria (supra). Therefore, this writ petition in the considered opinion of this Court deserves to be allowed. 18. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 22.03.2013 Annex.5 qua the present petitioner is quashed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith." Accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of in same terms. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.;