Shri Fateh Lal Officiating Sub Inspector, who has been declared unsuccessful in two attempts in the Promotion Cadre Course is reverted to his substantive post Head Constable with immediate effect and posted in the O.P., ACD Jaipur City vice Shri Chandrapal offg. H.C. Proceeding for Promotion Cadre Course with with effect from 16.4.70 to Ajmer.
Shri Fatehlal's name from the list of candidates who qualified for undergoing the promotion cadre course vide this Office No. 6705-70 ( order book No. 319 ) dated 15.7.67 is struck off.
Dy. Inspector General of Police,
3. Shri Fatehlal was first appointed as a Clerk in the police Department of the former Udaipur State in substantive capacity on 27.12 1945. In 1947 he came to be promoted as a senior clerk substantively in the Criminal Investigation Department. He was a special report dealing Assistant and he was posted in the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C. I.D. Udaipur. After the formation of Rajasthan he was appointed as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., Jaipur, by his order dated 30.11.49 on a maximum pay of Rs. 55/. per month plus the usual dearness allowance This order was effective from 1 12 49. The petitioner continued on this post till 14.4.54 when he was appointed as a Brivet Jamadar by an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., Rajasthan, Jaipur. While he was working a Brivet Jamadar ha was ordered to officiate as a Sub Inspector on a number of occasions On 10.3.58 a written test was held for the Head Constables with a view to preparing an approved list for promotion to the post of Sub Inspectors in accordance with a Standing Order (No. 6) of the I.G.P. Jaipur The petitioner qualified In the test. However, by a subsequent older of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 22.8 58 the aforesaid test was cancelled. A fresh test was ordered to be held on 18.10.58, but this was postponed more than once and eventually a test was held at Ajmer on 25 1 59. Regarding this test the petitioner avers that the information of it was sent to him by a radiogram on 24-1-59 and the same evening he started for Ajmer from his place of posting at Udaipur, but unfortunately for him during the journey he became seriously ill. He had undersgone a treatment from a doctor at Ajmer and remained confined to bed till 30.1.59. The petitioner asserts that he had brought this to the notice of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch. C.I.D., Jaipur and Deputy Police ZONE Officer, C.I.D , Ajmer by a telegram. The test was, however, held and the petitioner came to be reverted by an order dated 11-2-59 as Head Constable on the ground that he did not appear at the test held on 25-1- 59 The petitioner then took a qualifying test for the Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Sub Inspectors of police. The test was held on 28-6-67 and the petitioner pasted this test. The petitioner was then sent for the Promotion Cadre Course at the the Police Training School, Kishangarh. He attended the course from 7-9-68 to 7-6-69. The petitioner claims to have passed the monthly tests, but again as illuck will have it, he failed at the final test. On 20.6.69, the Assistant Inspector General of police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, give a radiogram to all the District Superintendents of Police for informing the unsuccessful candidates to undergo the full course of training again at the Trailing School. Kishangarh. The petitioner was accordingly informed by the Superintendent of Police, A.C.D Jaipur to attend the Police Training School for Promotion Cadre Course afresh. The petitioner, however, could not know in what subjects he had failed and what the marks scored by him were. He, therefore, addressed a number of applications or letters to the Superintendent of Police to inform him about his fate, but the Superintendent of Police wrote to say that there was no practice of communicating the marks or that of issuing mark sheets to unsuccessful candidates. Never the less the petitioner took the Promotion Cadre Course once again and has claims to have completed the same on 9-3-70. According to the petitioner, till the time of the passing out parade he was not told that he had failed, but ultimately on 26.3.70 the Principal, Police Training School, Kishangarh ordered that the names of the petitioner as also of six others be struck off from the list of candidates who had qualified of undergoing the Promotion Cadre Course for the rank of Sub Inspectors. It was further ordered by him that the candidates including the petitioner will have to pass the qualifying test for the Promotion Cadre Course once again and finally he made the observation that those who had not passed the Promotion Cadre Course would be reverted to their substantive rank.
4. The writ petition has been opposed by the State. It is denied that the order of the petitioner, is reversion was bad on any of the grounds taken by the petitioner'. It was further submitted that in accordance with the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules'', the petitioner was required to pass the Promotion Cadre Course examination and for this he could claim to have only two opportunities and on his failure to pass the examination after two attempts he is required to take the qualifying ten afresh and then go for a fresh Promotion Cadre Course.
5. In assailing the impugned order Ex. 10, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended: (1) that once in terms of the Standing Order of the Inspector General of Police the petitioner had passed the examination he was thereafter not required to take the Promotion Cadre Course or to pass the Proof motion Cadre Course Examination. It was pointed our that at the time the petitioner passed the examination in the year 1958 it was only the Standing Order the Inspector General of Police that governed the matter and, according to learned Counsel, in the case of Shri Mahesh Pareekh the Government themselves had decided that a person who had passed the test in accordance with the standing order need not be required to pass the Promotion Cadre Course Examination. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of Tyagi, J. in Khooman Singh v. state and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 97 of 1967, decided on 8.9.69 (2) The petitioner was substantively appointed as an Assistant Sub Inspector under orders of tae Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID on 30-11-49 and nod he continued as such till 1954 when he was appointed as a Brivet Jamadar Learned Counsel argues that according to Rule 24(4) of the 1966 Rules a person who was Assistant Sub Inspector was not required to take the Promotion Cadre Course and after his passing the qualifying examination itself his name was to be brought on the approved list. (3) The Principal of the Kishangarh Training School was not competent to order or direct that the petitioner be reverted, (4) the order of the Principal, Kishangarh Training School was not competent to order or direct that the petitioner be reverted, (4) the order of the Principal, Kishangarh Training School, was mala fide, (5) that the petitioner was not intimated the marks obtained by him at the first Promotion Cadre Course Examination, nor was he informed as to in what subjects, if any, he had failed. Therefore; according to the petitioner, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had not passed the first Promotion Cadre Course Examination with the result that the petitioner could not be called upon to take the qualifying test afresh and likewise he cannot be visited with the order of reversion.
6. As regards the first contention it is enough to say that a similar point had been raised in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 418 of 1270 Motial Sharma v. State and Ors., and finding myself in disagreement with some of the observations of Tyagi, J. I have recommended the case for a reference to a larger Bench. I would have done the same thing in the present case as well, but both the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that the petitioner Shri Fatehlal has retired from service on superannuating and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in making a reference, I feel that in view of the petitioner's retirement it will not be in the fitness of things to deal with the other contentions as well. The petitioner's case appears to be a hard one. He was appointed as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in November, 1949 and it is not denied that he continued as such till 1954. Further it is not denied that he had passed the test held in the year 1958 which was of cause cancelled later. Having continued for a sufficient time as Assistant Sub Inspector and then as Brivet Jamadar the petitioner came to be appointed as officiating Sub Inspector though there were some breaks in between. All these events do show that the petitioner has bad a heart burning on account of the reversion more so when the Government have laid down a kind of precedent in Shri Mahesh Pareekh's case though 1 may frankly confess that there may be a room for different opinion even in this. Any way, in view of the petitioner's retirement there could not be any question of ordering any reinstatement. I leave the matter with the hope that should the petitioner file a representation before the Government they will be dealing with him in a just manner.
7. With this expression of hope I should think the chanter should close here. Therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service and it will be simply prolonging the agony of the petitioner if his case were referred to a larger Bench as was done in Motilal's case, I leave the matter for the consideration of the Government and, in the circumstances, dismiss the writ petition. The parties are left to bear their own costs.