- (1.) THESE two appeals are directed against common judgment/order dated 01.03.2011 of learned Single Judge by which writ petitions filed by petitioners -appellants, by which their writ petitions have been dismissed.
(2.) PETITIONERS -appellants in Appeal No. 1336/2011 were selected for undergoing promotion cadre post on the recommendation of the Board. They were at the relevant time working on the post of Constable in 2nd Battalion, RAC, Kota, Rajasthan. They were, on recommendation of the Board, selected for undergoing promotion cadre course. Similarly, petitioners -appellants in Appeal No. 549/2011 were working on the post of Constable in the 5th Battalion, RAC, Jaipur. They were also recommended for promotion cadre course on the recommendation of the Board. Certain candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories, who were senior to the petitioners -appellants, made a complaint to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan. On examination, it was found that selection of the petitioners -appellants was not in conformity with the instructions contained in the Circular of the Government dated 20.10.2000. The Director General of Police, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Police Service Rules, 1989, by order dated 26.05.2009 in the case of the petitioners -appellants in Appeal No. 1336/2011 and by order dated 18.06.2009 in the case of the petitioners -appellants in Appeal No. 549/2011, cancelled the selection of the petitioners -appellants and constituted new Board consisting of Inspector General of Police RAC -I as Chairman and Commandant 2nd Battalion, RAC, Jaipur, and Additional Superintendent of Police, CID, CB, Legal Cell, as its Members, to select the candidates for undergoing promotional cadre course. The Board submitted its proceedings to the Director General of Police, recommending selection of fresh candidates. The Director General, by order dated 27.07.2009, ordered that the entire promotional cadre course undertaken by the petitioners -appellants would be treated as refresher course and entry to this effect may be made in their service book. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioners -appellants filed writ petitions, which have been dismissed by learned Single Judge by aforesaid common judgment/order. Hence these special appeals.
(3.) SHRI Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioners -appellants, has argued that the petitioners -appellants, after participating in the written examination for promotion on the post of Head Constable, were duly selected by the Board for promotional cadre course and thereafter by order of the respondents, they were sent to attend the said promotional cadre course, which commenced from 16.02.2009. The petitioners -appellants completed the said course on 24.02.2009 and were relieved to join their respective battalion by order passed on that date. The respondents have wrongly cancelled their selection on the basis of Circular dated 20.10.2000 but the said Circular has already been amended by another Circular dated 09.04.2008. The petitioners -appellants did not make any misrepresentation or concealment at the time of their selection to undergo promotional cadre course. The U.O. Note prepared by the Government, has been reproduced in Para 12 of the memo of appeal. Referring to that U.O. Note, learned counsel for the petitioners -appellants submitted that therein it has been noted that the petitioners -appellants, on being duly selected, have successfully completed the promotional cadre course and they were at fault. If their seniors were not selected, they may be accommodated against six posts which remained vacant against the vacancies of the year 2008 -09 and remaining three may be kept in reserve list for being promoted against the post of future vacancies. This fact was specifically argued before learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for petitioners -appellants, argued that learned Single Judge instead of giving any categorical instruction to the respondents, has merely left it open for the respondents to consider their candidature in terms of the scheme of the Rules of 1989. Since no specific mandamus was issued to the respondents, the case of the petitioners -appellants has not been considered and they were not promoted against the vacancies of the subsequent year.;