Skip to content


Anand Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1748 to 1980
Judge
Reported in1982WLN(UC)207
AppellantAnand Singh
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
rajasthan police subordinate service rules, 1974 - rule 30--representation relating to qualifying examination includes rechecking, retotalling and revaluation--representation not disposed of i.g.--held, representation be disposed of within 3 months.;if a member of the service makes any representation relating to qualifying examination the orders of the inspector general of police on it must be obtained and his orders ordinarily shall be final. representation which relates to qualifying examination also includes a representation for re-valuation, re-totalling and re-checking as and when service representation is made the same must be laid before the inspector general of police and his orders should be sought. it is for him to allow or decline a request for re-valuation re-checking..........20, 1980, by the chairman, board of qualifying examination-cum-additional inspector general of police police head quarters, jaipur. the petitioner was declared fail. he made representation that his examination copy be re-totalled and re-valued because definitely some mistake has been caused and on account of some prejudices in the mind of the authorities of the department to give undue help to other incumbents. the general request of the petitioner was not accepted for re-totalling and re-valuation of the espies of the qualifying examination a representation was also made to the inspector general of police to the effect, but the same too has not been disposed of.2. the state has filed a return in which it is stated that under rule 24 of the rajasthan police subordinate service rules,.....
Judgment:

Mahendra Bhushan Sharma J.

1. In this writ petition, during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Anand Singh, has confined his arguments to the disposal of the representation of the petitioner made to the Inspector General of Police relating to qualifying examination in which he appeared. Thus only such facts which are relevant for consideration of the point canvassed in this writ petition may be stated. The petitioner, who initially entered Government service as Constable in R. A. C., Batallion, in Rajasthan Police, came to be selected and appointed as A.S.I. Wireless by order, dated April 9, 1956. After completion of the training he was confirmed on the post of A.S.I. by order, dated December 7, 1960. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of officiating Sub-Inspector of Police (wireless) by order, dated October 17, 1966. He was so promoted after undergoing qualifying examination as per the Rajasthan Police subordinate Service Rules, 1966. He was further promoted to the post of Supervisor, Wireless Police on ad hoc basis temporarily by order, dated December 17, 1971 after passing 1st Grade Radio Operator suitability and gradation course. He appeared in the Supervisor Examination conducted on May 23, 1974 and was declared successful. After the period of probation he was confirmed as Supervisor (Wireless Police) by Order, dated June 1, 1979. The qualifying examination for promotion cadre post to the rank of Inspector (Wireless) were conducted on June 10, 1980. The petitioner also appeared in the qualifying examination and the result of the written test was declared on June 20, 1980, by the Chairman, Board of Qualifying Examination-cum-Additional Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters, Jaipur. The petitioner was declared fail. He made representation that his examination copy be re-totalled and re-valued because definitely some mistake has been caused and on account of some prejudices in the mind of the authorities of the department to give undue help to other incumbents. The general request of the petitioner was not accepted for re-totalling and re-valuation of the espies of the qualifying examination a representation was also made to the Inspector General of Police to the effect, but the same too has not been disposed of.

2. The State has filed a return in which it is stated that under Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter) the process of selection and promotion is set out. Out of eligible candidates who pass the qualifying examination part I which consists of written test and practicals the Board prepares a list of successful candidates not exceeding five times of the vacancies in accordance with the seniority. The persons included in these lists then become eligible for part II qualifying examination which consists of interview and considering of Annual Confidence Reports and service record of the persons by the Board. Those candidates who secure minimum standard marks in aggregate in qualifying examination parts I and II become eligible to be included in the list of candidates to be seen to promotion cadre post. This list cannot exceed 1 1/2 time the number of vacancies. It is only after a person included in the second list successfully completes the promotion cadre course then he becomes eligible for substantive appointment. The Board was constituted under Rule 24 (3) of the Rules consisted of three members-Additional Inspector General of Police, Director of Wireless and one Technical Expert not below the rank of class I Officer. Shri S. L. Kang was Technical Expert of the Board who is an outsider for the department. The written test paper was set by said Kang and copies were examined by him. The petitioner appeared in the written test but failed and did not further participate in the examination. It is further the case of the State that the Rules nowhere prescribe for revaluation or re-checking of the answer books and thus his request for revaluation and re-checking was turned down and this does not involve any question of principles of natural justice. It is further stated that representation for revaluation and retotalling was correctly turned down.

3. The procedure for appointment by promotion is contained in part V of the Rules. Under Rule 24 of the Rules after the vacancies to be filled by promotion have been determined under Rule 9, the Board as referred to Sub-rule (3) shall be constituted which shall prepare correct and complete list containing names not exceeding five times the number of vacancies out of the senior most eligible members of service. It is not the grievance of the petitioner that the procedure prescribed in the rules for appointment by promotion has not been followed. The only grievance is that his request for re-checking, re-totalling and re-valuation was turned down. Rule 30 of the Rules is relevant and reads as under:

Rule 30--Disposal of representations and references if at any time a representation or reference realating to qualifying examination or preparation of Approved List or Promotion Cadre Course or its examination or any other training Course of selection or any other examination conducted under these Rules is made either by a member of the service or by any Board or by any subordinate Office, the orders of the Inspector General of Police on it shall be final and ordinarily no further representation or reference on the point so decided upon shall file to Government.

A perusal of the above Rule will make it clear that if at any time a representation or reference relating to qualifying examination or preparation of Approved List or Promotion Cadre Course or its examination or any other training course or selection or any other examination conducted under these Rules is made either by a member of the Service or by any Board or by any subordinate office, the orders of the Inspector General of Police on it shall be final and ordinarily no further representation or reference on the point so decided upon shall lie to Government. To my mind a reading of Rule 30 of the Rule will make it clear that if a member of the service makes any representation relating to qualifying examination the orders of the Inspector General of Police on it must be obtainted and his orders ordinarily shall be final. Representation which relates to qualifying examination also includes a representation for re-valuation, re totalling and re-checking as and when service representation is made the same must be laid before the Inspector General of Police and his orders should be sought. It is for him to allow or decline a request for re-valuation re-checking re-totalling In the instant case it does not appear from the reply as to whether the representation made by the petitioner for re-checking, re-totalling and re valuation was decided by the Inspector General of Police and it was turned down It has only been stated in the reply that representation was turned down but it is not stated as to by whom and when. Rule 30 confers a right on a member of the service that his representation relating to the qualifying examination which as already been stated earlier, includes re-checking, re valuation and re totalling, must be disposed of by the Inspector General of Police. If he allows his representation for re-totalling or re-checking or re-valuation as the case may be, then it must be done and if the Inspector General of Police turns down the representation then no further action shall be taken, but the member of the service must be informed of the result of his representation.

4. I will, therefore, allow this writ petition only to this extent that the representation, if any, relating to the qualifying examination, made by the petitioner, if not disposed of by now by the Inspector General of Police, should be disposed of within a period of three months and the result of it be communicated to the petitioner. In case the representation has already been decided by the Inspector General of Police even then the result of it should be communicated to the petitioner. The costs of this writ petition are made easy.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //