KAN SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition by one Puran Chand, a member of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, for an appropriate writ, direction or order. He has prayed that the respondents be restrained from holding the qualifying test from the 5th January, 1970 at Jodhpur and further the respondents be directed to put the name of the petitioner on the approved list of the Head Constables for promotion to the Platoon Commander and to promote him in accordance with the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966. He has also prayed for some ancillary reliefs.
(2.) THE petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary in the year 1951. In 1953 he came to be promoted as a Head Constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. In the year 1966 he was posted in the North Eastern Frontier Agency in the 8th Battalion of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. On 19-7-66, the Deputy Inspector General, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, Jodhpur sent a circular to all the Battalion Commanders calling upon them to hold qualifying tests and then select candidates for the promotion cadre course of the Platoon Commanders. THE petitioner took the qualifying test at Dibrugarh and he was selected for the promotion cadre course of Platoon Commanders. THE petitioner had undergone the promotion cadre Course at the R. A. C. Training Centre, Jodhpur in 1967 and on completion of the course he was relieved to join his Battalion. According to the petitioner, however, the results of the promotion cadre course were not formally declared. While the petitioner was expecting that: his name would be placed on the approved list for the purpose of promotion of Battalion Commanders he received a message that he has to give the qualifying test afresh. THE proposed test was, however, postponed from time to time, but in the year 1969 the petitioner was asked to take the test which he did under protest. THE petitioner claims that in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 on the completion of the promotion cadre course his name was required to be included in the list of approved candidates for promotion which the respondents had never done. THE petitioner contends that the respondents were under a duty to declare the result of the promotion cadre course undertaken by the petitioner and to include his name in the approved list and further they could not have called upon the petitioner to undergo the fresh qualifying test for the promotion cadre course. The writ petition has been opposed by the State of Rajasthan and other respondents. The respondents deny that the petitioner was appointed substantively as a Head Constable, but according to them, he was only temporarily promoted as Head Constable on 1-5-53. The respondents, however, admit that the Deputy Inspector General, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary had sent a circular letter calling upon the Battalion Commanders to hold the qualifying tests and to send the successful candidates for the promotion cadre course at Jodhpur and the promotion cadre course was taken by the petitioner along with others. However, it is denied that the fresh qualifying test for the promotion cadre course could not be insisted upon The respondents proceed to say that at the relevant time when the Deputy Inspector Generals's letter dated 19-7-66 was received at the Battallion Headquarters of the 8th Battalion of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary in the Nefa area the Commandant was on leave and during his absence the Assistant Commandant who was holding the charge of current duties of the Commandant in addition to his own formed the Board for selection. The Board consisted of the Assistant Commandant who was holding the charge of the Commandant and two others. According to the respondents, this Board did not scrutinise the record of 138 constables in the Battalion, but had scrutinised the record of only 23 Head Constables and out of them 11 including the petitioner were selected. The respondents further state that no written test was held in this Battalion as was done in other R. A. G. Battalions. On his return from leave the Commandant of the Battalion found that the Board bad selected 11 persons out of 23 Head Constables only who had appeared in the qualifying test and this was done purely on merit without due regard to the seniority. It was submitted that many persons senior to those recommended had qualified themselves by securing 50% marks and even though the persons were declared successful at the qualifying test yet their names were not recommended for the promotion cadre course. That being so the Commandant revised the list and arranged the names of successful Head Constables in the order of seniority and selected 11 senior most Head Constables. The revised list excluded 5 names from the previous list and instead 5 new senior-most Head Constables were included as they had obtained 50% of marks. The respondents proceed to say that when this came to the notice of the Inspector General of Police he examined the position and cancelled the promotion cadre course as well as the qualifying tests preceding it and ordered that fresh qualifying tests be held. The respondents take the position that the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 did not apply to members of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and as there were no statutory rules governing the holding of qualifying test or for the promotion cadre course or for the preparation of an approved list for that matter the Inspector General of Police could pass a proper order for rectifying the mistakes committed by the Battalion Commandants. In other words, according to the respondents, the petitioner had not acquired a legal right to be included in the approved list or thereafter for being considered for promotion as a Platoon Commander. The respondents further submitted that in pursuance of the orders of the Inspector General of Police qualifying test have already been held and the results were declared and the petitioner had failed at the test. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Govt. Advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not been able to point out in what manner the lists that were prepared were defective being contrary to the rules of procedure. He maintained that the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 governed the position. In the alternative he sub-mitted that in the absence of any statutory rules governing the promotion of Head Constables in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary as Platoon Commanders the respondents were following the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules and, therefore, unless they were able to show in what manner the Battalion Commandant had acted in contravention of the rules, it was not open to the Inspector General of Police to have cancelled the qualifying test for promotion cadre course. Apart from this it was urged that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as before cancelling the qualifying test for the promotion cadre course the Inspector General of Police did not afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned Additional Government Advocate has argued that the petitioner could not claim any legal right for inclusion of his name in the approved list or for further promotion on the basis of such on approved list. He relied on Ramaswamy vs. I. G. of Police (l ). Now to start with I may proceed to consider whether the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 applied to members of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Service or not. The Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 were made by the Governor in exercise of his powers under Art. 309 of the Constitution. Part II deals with the composition and strength of the service. It consists of three sections. Sec. 1 is of the Civil Police including Prosecution Branch. Sec. 2 is of the Armed Police; and sec. 3 consists of the Police Radio Organisation. The service, inter alia, consists of all persons holding substantively the posts specified in the Schedule. Sec. 1 contains the posts of Inspectors including Prosecuting Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors including the Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors, Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Head Constables and Constables. Sec. 2 is of Armed Police. It has the posts like those under the section regarding Civil Police. Part IV is regarding appointments, promotion and confirmation. R. 25 provides for substantive promotions in the service which shall be given strictly in accordance with the order in which names appear in the approved lists. R. 26 to 28 make provision for the holding of qualifying examinations for promotion, promotion cadre course and for preparation of an approved list. Now in the "the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Act, 1950" under which the Armed Constabulary has been constituted one finds that like the Police Act, this Act makes provision for the organisation of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. Sec. 3 lays down that there shall be raised and maintained by the Government a force to be called the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and it shall be constituted in one or more battalions in such manner for such period as may be prescribed. The control and direction of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary is to vest in the Inspector General and in such Deputy Inspector Generals as the State Government may direct. Sec. 4 makes provision for enrolment and discharge of officers of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. It lays down that before any person is appointed to the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary the statement in the schedule shall be read and, if necessary, explained to him. This is a provision which is peculiar to the constituting of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and one does not find any such provision in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules. Then there are certain offences which are created for misdemeanour on the part of the members of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. Then there are certain minor punishments like imprisonment in the quarter guard etc. which are peculiar to this force. Sec. 15 empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and it, inter alia, lays down that the rules may provide for (i) the number of battalions to be constituted, (ii) the pay and other terms and conditions of service of officers of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, and (iii) the manner in which and the persons who may be appointed to be officers of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and for any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed. The conditions of service of the members of the Armed Constabulary will be governed principally by the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Act and the Rules made thereunder though for certain purposes the members of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary too would be Police Officers. I am, therefore, not persuaded to hold that the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 will be applicable to the members of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. It is true, the respondents have been applying these ruler even to the members of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, but this is being done only by way of analogy in pursuance of administrative procedure or instructions. The difference regarding the impact of the procedure adopted by the Inspector General of Police for the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and what would be done for the ordinary police under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules is obvious. In the former the breach of an administrative instruction as such will not confer any right upon an incumbent whereas for the breach of the statutory rules the respondents may be answerable. In Ramaswamy vs. I. G. of Police (l) the facts were that under the provisions of the Hyderabad District Police Act and the Police Manual some Sub-Inspectors of Police were interviewed by a Board of selection and their names were included in the eligibility list for the posts of Circle Inspectors prepared before the States Reorganisation of the State of Andhra Pradesh which came from 1-11-56. Some of the Sub-Inspectors whose names were included in the eligibility list were transferred to the State of Mysore as re-organised by the States Reorganisation Act and they were promoted on an ad hoc basis to the posts of Circle Inspectors, because the permanent incumbents had either gone on leave or were on deputation On the return of the permanent incumbents the ad hoc Circle Inspectors were reverted to their substantive posts of Sub-Inspectors. It was argued that such reverted sub-inspectors could not have been reverted without first reverting others who were junior to them and that their reversion amounted to reduction in rank. It was in this context that their Lordships observed that the mere fact that the Sub-Inspector's name is put in the eligibility list does not give him any indefeasible right of promotion. Further the fact that he is actually promoted temporarily or as officiating does not give him any right to continuance even during the period of two years' probation and he is liable to be reverted at any time during those two years if his work is found unsatisfactory. Their Lordships added that it is only when the authority concerned has found that his work and conduct was satisfactory during the probation period that he can be confirmed. Their Lordships negatived the contention that the petitioners in the case had any right under the eligibility list for promotion or that after they had actually been promoted they had a right to continue in the posts of Circle Inspectors.
(3.) HERE the petitioner stands in a less favourable situation. His name was recommended for the promotion cadre course on his having passed the qualifying test and he had undergone the promotion cadre course, but thereafter his name was not included in the approved list. Before that stage could be reached the whole thing was snapped under orders of the Inspector General of Police. As I have already observed, the matter was governed by the administrative instructions here, whereas in the Supreme Court case (1) there were the statutory rules governing the question of inclusion of one's name in the eligibility list. One may have sympathy for the petitioner who was made to undergo the qualifying test more than once and it was unfortunate that on the second occasion he lost the chance, but inspite of in the absence of his having a legal right the Court cannot give him any relief. The contention regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice does not find place in the writ petition. Apart from this when no legal right came to be created in favour of the petitioner the principles of natural justice will not be attracted. For the above reasons, therefore, I hereby dismiss the writ petition, but leave the parties to bear their own costs. . ;