Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) THE respondents conducted process of selection for the purpose of promotion to the post of Head Constable (General) against the vacancies of the year 2004 -05. Being eligible, the petitioner faced selection proceedings and in the list of qualified incumbents his name was placed at serial No. 31, whereas one Shri Tarachand, Constable 824 was placed at serial No. 26. By a letter dated 22.2.2005 the Tarachand was not eligible to be considered for promotion in view of the Government of Rajasthan's circular dated 13.8.2004, which prescribes that the candidates having more than two children born on or after 1.6.2002 shall not be eligible to be considered for promotion. By acting upon the complaint submitted by the petitioner, name of Shri Tarachand was deleted from the list of qualified incumbents. By an office order dated 14.6.2005 the Commandant, II -Battalion, RAC, ordered for remitting 15 selected persons to undergo promotion cadre course. The name of the petitioner was not shown in the list aforesaid and it was communicated to him under a letter dated 29.7.2005 that against 10 vacancies a list of 15 persons was prepared, however, on deletion of name of any person no new person can be added as the rules do not provide for the same. Being aggrieved by it, this petition for writ is preferred.
(2.) THIS Court vide order dated 23.8.2005 while admitting the writ petition for hearing as an interim measure directed the respondents to send the petitioner for promotion cadre course provisionally. It is informed to the Court by counsel for the petitioner that in pursuant to the interim order aforesaid the petitioner has already undergone the promotion cadre course, however, the promotion is not yet been accorded to him. In reply to the write petition the stand of the respondents is the same as given in letter dated 29.7.2005 (Anx.7). It is asserted by the respondents that the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1989') nowhere prescribes to add any person in the list of selected incumbents if it is found that somebody was wrongly included in the list concerned and his name is deleted.
(3.) THE main contention of Shri Kuldeep Mathur, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that Shri Tarachand was erroneously considered by the respondents and if his candidature would have been rejected at inception then the petitioner could have been placed in the select list and he would have been sent for promotion cadre course. The petitioner has been denied from his right to be appointed as Head Constable by way of promotion for a fault of the respondents themselves. It is also stated by counsel for the petitioner that in similar circumstances this Court in Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in, 2005 (9) RDD 3594 (Raj), held as follows: 10. It is the position admitted that the respondents made appointments of 15 persons from the select list containing the name of 16 persons and appointment was given to Shri of the petitioner was at Sr.No. 16. The petitioner immediately after appointment of Shri Satish Chandra made a complaint to the competent authority with regard to forgery made by Shri Satish Chandra. Not only this he filed a writ petition before this Court giving challenge to appointment of Shri Satish Chandra in the month of May, 1998 itself. This fact makes it crystal clear that the petitioner was approaching the respondents to examine genuineness of the documents produced before them by Shri Satish Chandra from beginning. The documents produced by Shri Satish Chandra were ultimately found forged and he was removed from service. In the event the respondents would have acted expeditiously or would have examined the genuineness of the documents before giving appointment to Shri Satish Chandra, his candidature would have been rejected at quite an earlier stage and the petitioner would have been given appointment against the vacancy occupied by Shri Satish Chandra under the order dated 23.3.1998. The petitioner was duly selected by a competent selection committee and appointment was not accorded to him at first instance only for the reason that the respondents treated Shri Satish Chandra a person eligible to be appointed as Physical Training Instructor though he was not and, therefore, the post was occupied by a person who was not eligible to hold the same. 11. Once it is found by the respondents themselves that the appointment to Shri Satish Chandra was given erroneously as he then the requirement is that the post left by him should have been offered to the petitioner as the petitioner was making complaint with regard to appointment of Shri Satish Chandra from the very first day of his appointment. The denial of appointment to the petitioner who is a duly selected candidate on the count that the select list concerned stood expired is not fair in present set of circumstances. The select list is required to be treated in currency for the reason that an appointment given on basis of select list in question was in dispute on the count of the conditions pertaining to eligibility and it was the petitioner himself who made such complaint.;