Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) ARGUMENTS were heard on the application for interim relief submitted by the petitioners alongwith the above writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioners are all Sub Inspectors working in the respondent Police Department, who crave promotion on the posts of Inspectors. A number of Sub Inspectors in the respondent Police Department approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by way of separate appeals being aggrieved of the action of the respondents in making incorrect determination of the vacancies for promotions to the posts of the Inspectors of the Police. The appellants before the Tribunal alleged that they were not included in the select list prepared by the department for promotion inspite of passing the qualifying exam. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by order dated 29.11.2013 declaring that the mode of determining the vacancies by the respondent Police Department was not in accordance with the procedure established by the service Rules and was thus totally illegal. The respondents were directed to redetermine the yearwise vacancies and grant promotion to the concerned persons as per their entitlement. The Tribunal's order was challenged by the Director General of Police and the respondent Police Department before the learned Single Bench at Jaipur Bench of this Court by preferring writ petitions. Three private persons also preferred writ petitions challenging the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Tribunal. The writ petitions came to be allowed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.5.2015 with the following directions: - "25. In the aforesaid premises, following directions are given: - (i) The petitioners are directed to redetermine yearwise vacancies for the years 2011 -12, 2012 -13 and 2013 -14, considering the position as on 1st April 2013, in accordance with Rule -10 of the said Rules, and as per the observations made hereinabove, within one month from today. (ii) The petitioners after redetermination of the vacancies for the said years shall immediately start the process of filling up the said vacancies by conducting the qualifying examination of the eligible candidates as per the said Rules, and shall prepare fresh select lists for each year separately keeping in view the number of vacancies in that year and considering only those Sub -Inspectors who were eligible for promotion in that particular year. (iii) It is further directed that while undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the promotions already made on 88 posts of Inspectors against the vacancies of 2011 -12 shall not be disturbed. (iv) Since the respondents have already cleared the qualifying examinations conducted by the petitioners, they shall be accommodated in the fresh select lists of promotions that may be prepared for the respective years, as per their eligibility and seniority, and as per the vacancies available in the said years. (v) The notification dated 16.8.13 is set aside. (vi) It is expected that the petitioners shall determine and fill up the vacancies for the years 2014 -15 onwards strictly in accordance with the said Rules, and as per the observations made in this judgment." Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents redetermined the vacancies for the promotion years 2011 -12, 2012 -13 and 2013 -14 and conducted a combined qualifying test, wherein the petitioners too participated and failed. They have now approached this Court claiming that the respondents were required to determine yearwise vacancies and to hold separate tests for each promotional year.
(3.) AS per the petitioners, by conducting a single qualifying test, the vacancies of three years were clubbed together and thereby, the respondents have deprived the petitioners of two distinct attempts at the qualifying test. As per the petitioners, in the event of failing the qualifying test for the year 2011 -12, they are entitled to two more attempts in fresh qualifying tests which are required to be held separately for the next two years' vacancies. Thus, it is asserted that the procedure adopted by the respondents in holding a combined qualifying exam caused severe prejudice to the petitioners. The petitioners crave that the respondents be restrained from filling up the vacancies on the posts of Inspectors for the promotion years 2012 -13 and 2013 -14 and to direct them to hold two separate qualifying exams for these promotion years.;