Kan Singh, J.
1. This is a writ petition by one Puran Chand, a member of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, for an appropriate writ, direction or order. He has prayed that the respondents be res rained from holding the qualifying test from he 5th January, 1970 at Jodhpur and further the respondents be directed to put the name of the petitioner on the approved list of the Head Constable for promotion to the Platoon Commander and to promote him in accordance with the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, He has also prayed for some ancillary reliefs.
2. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary in the year 1951. In 1953 he came to be promoted as a Head Constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. In the year 1966 he was posted in the North Eastern Frontier Agency in the 8th Battalion of the Rajasthan Armed Constbulary. On 19.7.66, the Deputy Inspector General, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, Jodhpur sent a circular to all the Battalion Commanders calling upon them to hold qualifying tests and then select candidates for the promotion cadre course of the Platoon Commandos. The petitioner took the qualifying test at Dibrugarh and he was selected for the promotion cadre course of Platoon Commanders The petitioner had undergone the promotion cadre course at the R.A.C. Training Centre, Jodhpur in 1967 and on completion of the course he was relieved to join his battalion. According to the petitioner, however, the results of the promotion cadre course were not formally declared While the petitioner was expecting that his name would be placed on the approved list for the purpose of promotion of Battalion Commanders he received a message that he has to give the qualifying test afresh. The proposed test was, however, postponed from time to time, but in the year 1969 the petitioner was asked to take the test which he did under: protest. The petitioner claims that in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 on the completion of the promotion cadre course his name was required to be included in the lis of approved candidates for promotion which the respondents had never done. The petitioner contends that the respondents were under a duty to declare the result of the promotion cadre course undertaken by the petitioner and to include his name in the approved list and further they could not have called upon the petitioner to undergo the fresh qualifying test for the promotion cadre course.
3. The write petition has been opposed by the State of Rajasthan and other respondents. The respondents deny that the petitioner was appointed substantively as a Head Constable, but according to them, he was only temporarily promoted (sic) a Hear Constable on 1.5.53. The respondents however, admit that the Deputy Inspector General' Rajasthan Armed Constabulary had sent a circular letter calling upon the Battalion Commanders to hold the qualifying tests and to send the successful candidates for the promotion cadre course at jodhpur and the promotion cadre course was taken by the petitioner along with others. However, it is denied that the fresh qualifying test for the promotion cadre course could not be insisted upon The respondents proceed to say that at the relevant time when the Deputy Inspector General's letter dated 19.7.66 was received at the Battalion Headquarters of the 8th Battalion of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary in the NEFA area the Commandant was on leave and during his absence the Assistant Commandant who was holding the charge of current duties of the Commandant in addition to his own formed the Board for selection. The Board consisted of the Assistant Commandant who was holding the charge of the Commandant and two others. According to the respondents, this Board did not scrutinise the record of 138 constables in the Battalion, but had scrutinised the record of only 23 Head Constables and out of them 11 including the petitioner were selected. The respondents further state that no written test was held in this Battalion as was done in other R.A.C Battalions. On his return from leave the Commandant of the Battalion found that the Board had selected 11 persons out of 23 Head Constables only who had appeared in the qualifying test and this was done purely on merit without due regard to the seniority. It was submitted that many persons senior to those recommended had qualified themselves by securing 50% marks and even though the persons were declared successful at the qualifying test their names were not recommended for the promotion cadre course. That being so the Commandant revised the list and arranged the names of successful Head Constables in the order of seniority and selected 11 senior most Head Constables The revised list excluded 5 names from the previous list and instead 5 new senior most Head Constables were included as a they had obtained 50% of marks The respondents proceed to say that when this came to the notice of the Inspector General of Police he examined the position and cancelled the promotion cadre course as well as the qualifying test preceding it and ordered that fresh qualifying tests be held The respondents take the position that the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules 1966 did not apply to members of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and as there were no statutory rules governing the holding of quilting test or for the promotion cadre course or for the preparation of an approved list for that matter the Inspector General of Police could pass a proper order for rectifying the mistakes committed by the Battalion Commandants. In other words, according to the respondents, the petitioner head not acquired a legal right to be included in the approved list or thereafter for being considered for promotion as a Platoon Commander. The respondents further submitted that in pursuance of the orders of the Inspector General of Police qualifying tests have already been held and the results were declared and the petitioner had failed at the test.
4. I have heard leraned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Leraned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not been able to point out in what manner the lists that were prepared were defective being contrary to the rules of procedure. He maintained that the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 governed the position. In the alternative he submitted that in the absence of any statutory rules governing the promotion of Head Constables to the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary as Platoon Commanders the respondents were following the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules and, therefore, unless they were able to show in what manner the Battalion Commandant had acted in contravention of the rules, it was not open to the Inspector General of Police to have cancelled the qualifying test for promotion cadre course. Apart from this it was urged that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as before canceling the qualifying test for the promotion cadre course the Inspector General of Police did not afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned Additional Government Advocate has argued that the petitioner could not claim any legal right for inclusion of his name in the approved list or for further promotion on he basis of such an approved list. He relied on Ramaswamy v. I.G of Police : (1970)ILLJ649SC .
5. Now to start with I may proceed to consider whether the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 applied to members of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Service of not. The Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 were made by the Governor in exercise of his powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. Part II deals with the composition and strength of the service. It consists of three sections. Section 1 is of the Civil Police including Prosecution Branch. Section 2 is of the Armed Police; and Section 3 consists of the Police Radio Organisation The service, inter alia, consists of all persons holding substantively the posts specified in the Schedule Section 1 contains the posts of Inspectors including the Prosecuting Inspectors, Sub Inspectors including the Prosecuting Sub Inspectors, Assistant Sub Inspectors, Head Constables and Constables. Section 2 is of Armed Police It is has the posts like those under the section regarding Civil Police. Part IV is regarding appointments, promotion and confirmation Rule 25 provides for substantive promotions in the service which shall be given strictly in accordance with the order in which names appear in the approved lists. Rules 26 to 28 make provision for the holding of qualifying examinations for promotion, promotion cadre course and for preparation of an approved list.
6. Now in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Act, 1950 under which the Armed Constabulary has been constituted one finds that' like the Police Act, this Act makes provision for the organisation of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Section 3 lays down that there shall be raised and maintained by the Government a force to be called the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and it shall be constituted in one or more battalions in such manner for such period as may be prescribed. The control and direction of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary is to vest in the Inspector General and in such Deputy Inspector General as the State Government may direct. Section 4 makes provision for enrolment and discharge of officers of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary It lays down that before any person is appointed to the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary the statement in the schedule shall be read and, if necessary, explained to him. This is a provision which is peculiar to the constituting of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and one does not find any such provision in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules. Then there are certain offences which are created for misdemeanor on the part of the members of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. Then there are certain minor punishments like imprisonment in the quarter guard etc. which are peculiar to this force. Section 15 empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act and it, inter alia, lays down that the rules may provide for (i) the number of battalions to be constituted, (ii) the pay and other term and end conditions of service of officers of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, and (iii) the manner in which and the persons who may be appointed to be officers of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and for any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed. The conditions of service of the members of the Armed Constabulary will be governed principally by the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Act and the Rules made there under though for certain purposes the members of Rajasthan Armed Constabulary too would be Police Officers. I am, therefore, not persuaded to hold that the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 will be applicable to the members of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. It is true, the respondents have been applying these rules even to the members of Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, but this is being done only by wav of analogy in pursuance of administrative procedure or instructions. The difference regarding the impact of the procedure adopted by the Inspector General of Police for the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and what would be done for the ordinary police under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules is obvious. In the former the breach of an administrative instruction as such will not confer any right upon an incumbent where as for the breach of the statutory rules the respondents may be answerable.
7. In Ramaswamy v. I.G. of Police : (1970)ILLJ649SC the facts were that under the provisions of the Hyderabad District Police Act and the Police Manual some Sub Inspectors of Police were interviewed by a Board of Selection and their names were included in the eligibility list for the posts of Circle Inspectors prepared before the States Reorganisation of the State of Andhra Pradesh which came from 1.11.56. Some of the Sub Inspectors whose names were included in the eligibility list were transferred to the State of Mysore as reorganised by the State Reoganisaton Act and they were promoted on mead hoc basis to the posts of Circle Inspectors; because the permanent incumbents had either gone on leave or were on deputation On the return of the permanent incumbents the ad hoc Circle Inspectors were reverted to their substantive posts of Sub inspectors. It was argued that such reverted Sub Inspectors could not have been reverted without first reverting other who were junior to them and that their reversion amounted to reduction in rank. It was in this context that their Lordships observed that the mere fact that Sub Inspector's name is out in the eligibility list does not give him any actually right of promotion. Further the fact that he is actually promoted temporarily or as officiating doe not give him any right to continuance even during the period of two years' probation and be is liable to be reverted at any time daring those two years if his work is found unsatisfactory. Their Lordships added that it is only when the authority concerned has found that his work and conduct was satisfactory during the probation period chat he be confirmed Their Lordshpeps negative the con en ion that the petitioners in the case had any right under the eligibility list for promotion or that after they had actually been promoted, they bad a right to continue in the posts of Circle Inspector.
8. Here the petitioner stands in a less favourable situation. His name was recommended for the promotion cadre on his having passed the qualifying test and he had undergone the promotion cadre course, but thereafter his name was not included in the approved list. Before that stage could be reached the whole thing was snapped under orders of the Inspector General of Police. As I have already conserved, the matter was governed by the administrative instructions here, where as in the Supreme Court case : (1970)ILLJ649SC there were the statutory rules governing the question of inclusion of one's name in the eligibility list. One may have sympathy for the petitioner who was made to undergo the qualifying test more than once and it was unfortunate that on the second occasion be lost the chance, but inspite of it in the absence of his having legal right the Court cannot give him any relief.
9. The contention regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice does not find place in the writ petition. Apart from this when no legal right came to be created in favour of the petitioner the principles of natural justice will not be attracted.
10. For the above reasons, therefore. I here by dismiss the writ petition, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.