S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by Nandlal praying that writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued, quashing the list (Anx. P/1) and the office order (Anx. P/2).
(2.) THE petitioner is employed as LC, CID. Zone Jodhpur and has completed 8 years of service on this post. The Deputy Inspector General of Police CID (Intelligence) Rajasthan vide circular dated September 14, 1978 invited applications for the posts of Head Constables. It was stated by the petitioner that being eligible for the promotion for the post of Held Constable, he applied for the same on September 14, 1978 through proper channel. After scrutiny of various applications, which were received, the petitioner was asked to undertake the written examination to be held for the purpose on December 4, 1978, According; to the petitioner, department has to fill 16 vacancies by promotion and recruitment written examination took place for filling the aforesaid 16 posts on December 4, 1978. The petitioner passed the written examination along with 90 other candidates. He was required to undertake the parade test, which he also qualified along with 73 other candidates. Thereafter, the Selection Board was requited to select 16 persons in Interview, as there existed sixteen vacancies only. The Selection Board, by its order (Anx. P/l) dated December 16, 1978 issued a list of 66 successful candidates In pursuance of the order (Anx. P/l), 12 persons were appointed on the post of Head Constable and it was laid down that onwards the persona will be promoted to the post of Head Constable according to the seniority assigned to them in the list framed by the Selection Board. This order was submitted by the petitioner along with the writ petition marked as Anx P/2 The petitioner has challenged the list. Anx. P/l and the order Anx. P/2. On February 8, 1979, show cause notice was issued to the respondents. In pursuance of the show cause notice, reply to the writ petition was filed The writ petition is opposed on various grounds Along with reply copy of office note Ex. R/l), dated December 3, )978, which is on the file of Establishment Branch of CID. (SB.), Rajasthan. Jaipur, was also submitted. Arguments were heard on August 9, 1979. When I began to dictate the order, at about 4 p.m. it was brought to my notice that a rejoinder supported by affidavit was presented on August 9, 1979 in the office. Learned Deputy Government Advocate stated that neither its copy wag delivered to him nor he was informed about its presentation. In those circumstances, I. postponed the dictation of order. I ordered that the case be again listed for admission today. When the case was taken up today, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents yesterday after arguments. The copies of the rejoinder and the affidavit were supplied to the learned Deputy Government Advocate today. I heard the arguments and ordered that rejoinder be taken on record. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Government Advocate were heard afresh.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that this writ petition has no merit.;