N.M. KASLIWAL, J.—As identical questions of fact and law are involved in all the above 28 cases whose list is appended in the Schedule annexed to this order, the same are disposed of by one single order. 2. All the petitioners are confirmed constables and working as Head-constables on ad hoc basis. The Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") lay down provision for qualifying examination for sending candidates to the Promotion Cadre Course for appointment by promotion as Head-constables from the post of Constables. For this purpose selection tests were to be held on July 27, 1980. For that purpose a list containing the names of eligible candidates along-with the programme of examinations was issued on July 7, 1980 by the Superintendent of Police, Sawaimadhopur. The selection test was subsequently postponed for August 12, 1980 and finally for September 5, 6 & 7, 1980. The petitioners appeared in the written test held on September 5 & 6, 1980 and qualified in the said test. The petitioners also qualified in the out-door parade test held on September 7, 1980 and were thereafter called for interview. The petitioners after appearing in the interview were declared successful in the qualifying examination as a whole and their names were included in the select-list of candidates for Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Head-constables. On the basis of the inclusion of the petitioners names in the select-list, orders, dated September 18 & 19, 1980 were issued appointing the petitioners as Head-constables. The petitioners were then sent to undergo Promotion Cadre Course on December 16, 1980. Thereafter the petitioners completed the said Promotion Cadre Course also and were confirmed as Head-constables by different orders in the month of November, 1982. 3. Four persons, namely, Shatnu Prasad, Krishna Mohan, Ram Swaroop and Ram Singh who were not selected for the Promotion Cadre Course filed four appeals before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur challenging their failure in the qualifying examination and the orders, dated September 18 & 19, 1980. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the above mentioned four persons did not implead the petitioners as parties in the appeals filed before the Service Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the above mentioned four persons did not implead the petitioners as parties in the appeals filed before the Service Tribunal. The main ground of challenge in the appeals before the Tribunal was that every member of the Board ought to have participated in practical parade and interview, and in this case Mahavir Prasad, Additional Superintendent of Police, Karauli who was one of the members of the Board, had not participated in the out-door parade and interview and had left the place at about 11 a.m. on September 6, 1980 after written examination was over. The Service Tribunal accepted the contention raised by the appellants and held that Shri Mahavir Prasad did not participate in the activities after written test and this was in contravention of the Rules and it vitiates the entire selection in so far as it relates to practical parade and other out-door tests and interview. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Shatnu Prasad as he had not passed even the written examination papers but so far as other three appellants were concerned their appeals were allowed as they had cleared written examination but were found unsuitable in parade test. The Service Tribunal thus, by order, dated June 15, 1982, quashed the orders, dated September 18 & 19, 1980 with the observations that participation of every member of the Board in practical parade and other out-door tests and in interview and examination of service record was mandatory. 4. As already mentioned above the petitioners were not parties in the appeals before the Service Tribunal and they only came to know of all the above facts when a letter, dated April 6, 1983 was sent by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur to Superintendent of Police, Sawaimadhopur seeking to know whether the aforesaid judgment of the Service Tribunal had been appealed against or not and in case no appeal had been filed the orders, dated September 18 & 19, 1980, be set aside and that whosoever constables had passed earlier were required to appear again in the written examination, parade and interview and a new Board consisting of R.N. Gaur, Superintendent of Police, District Sawaimadhopur, Girdhari Lal Sharma, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Gangapur and Navjeet Singh, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Alwar were nominated as members of such Board. Superintendent of Police, Gangapur and Navjeet Singh, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Alwar were nominated as members of such Board. The petitioners aggrieved against the order of the Service Tribunal, dated June 15, 1982 and the consequential letter issued on April 6, 1983 by Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur, have filed these writ petitions. As the petitioners were also threatened of their reversion from the post of Head constables to the post of constables, stay application was also filed. This Court on April 19, 1983 had issued notice of the stay application and meanwhile their reversion from the post of Head-constables was also stayed. 5. Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that by orders, dated September 18 & 19, 1980 the petitioners had been included in the approved list of candidates to be sent for Promotion Cadre Course and the same could not have been quashed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. By these orders rights have been accrued and vested in favour of the petitioners and in case any adverse orders were to be passed against the petitioners they were necessary to be impeaded as parties in the appeal. The order thus passed by the Service Tribunal violates the principles of audi alteram partem and is, therefore, a nullity and void ab initio. 6. It was also argued by Mr. Calla that the petitioners had been declared successful finally in the qualifying examination and were sent to Promotion Cadre Course which was also completed successfully and thereafter they were confirmed on the post of Head-constable in the month of November, 1982 and those orders still remain intact and as such the order now issued by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur on April 6, 1983 is void and illegal. There was no fault on the part of the petitioners even if one member of the Board could not take physical test, parade and interview and on such hypertech-nical grounds, the regular selections of the petitioners cannot be set aside. Reliance is placed on lshwar Chandra vs. Satyanarain Sinha (1), and unreported decisions of two Division Benches of this Court in Faimuddin vs. State, D.B. Special Appeal No. 237/80, decided on July 16, 1982 and Narain Swaroop Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal No. 750/74, decided on March 21, 1983. 7. It was also contended by Mr. Reliance is placed on lshwar Chandra vs. Satyanarain Sinha (1), and unreported decisions of two Division Benches of this Court in Faimuddin vs. State, D.B. Special Appeal No. 237/80, decided on July 16, 1982 and Narain Swaroop Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal No. 750/74, decided on March 21, 1983. 7. It was also contended by Mr. Calla that the finding that one of the members Mahavir Prasad was not present in the parade and in interview, was absolutely wrong. Said Shri Mahavir Prasad was very much present till the half of the out-door parade test and was verymuch persent at the time of interview. Thus, on the one hand the finding of the Service Tribunal in this regard is factually incorrect and on the other hand presence of all the members of the Board was not at all mandatory nor the absence of one of the members can entail any penal consequences. It was also contended that the orders, dated June 15, 1982 and April 6, 1983 are in violation of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India and also violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. Mr. M.I. Khan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State supported the arguments of Mr. Calla and in addition it was also argued that it was nowhere laid down that each answer-book should be evaluated by all members of the Board. The answer-books were to be examined by anyone or more members of the Board. It was the discrection of the Chairman to allot setting of papers and examination of answer-books by various members of the Board. The evaluation at different level of the tests is distributed amongst various members and thus each one of the members will be deemed to have been a participant in such tests resulting in joint application of mind by the Board. The final result-sheet of all the tests has been signed by all the members in token of its acceptance and thus the participation in the selection process was of the Board and not two members. 9. It may be mentioned at this stage during the course of arguments learned Govt. The final result-sheet of all the tests has been signed by all the members in token of its acceptance and thus the participation in the selection process was of the Board and not two members. 9. It may be mentioned at this stage during the course of arguments learned Govt. Advocate also took the stand that Shri Mahavir Prasad had taken part in the out-door test and interview and was then asked by the Court to produce the original record but subsequently after reserving this order learned Government Advocate frankly conceded that Shri Mahavir Prasad had to be sent for urgent duty with regard to a dacoity and he did not participate in physical test and interview but the result sheet was signed and approved by him 10. Mr. Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the respondents, supported the order of the Service Tribunal. It was contended that the entire scheme of Rules 23, 24, 26 and 29 of the Rules showed that the entire act was to be done by all the members of the Board jointly. The Board in this case was not merely a recommendatory body but was entrusted with the task of selecting candidates finally and thus it was incumbent upon every member of the Board to apply its mind while awarding marks in the physical test and interview apart from the written examination. Mr. Singhvi distinguished the cases cited by Mr. Calla on the ground that these were not the cases where any member remained present in some part of the test and then did not participate in the remaining tests. 11. I have given my careful thought to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for all the parties and the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they were declared finally successful in the qualifying examination for Promotion Cadre Course by orders, dated September 18 & 19, 1980 They were also sent to undergo this course on December 16, 1980 and successfully completed the said course and were thereafter confirmed as Head-constables some where in the month of November, 1982. Admittedly the petitioners were not made parties before the Service Tribunal nor any stay was obtained in respect of their taking the Promotion Cadre Course. It is a well settled principle that no order can be passed against a person without giving an opportunity of hearing. Admittedly the petitioners were not made parties before the Service Tribunal nor any stay was obtained in respect of their taking the Promotion Cadre Course. It is a well settled principle that no order can be passed against a person without giving an opportunity of hearing. The order, dated June 15, 1982, passed by the Service Tribunal and the consequential order, dated April 6, 1983 issued by Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur are thus wrong and illegal on this score alone. The petitioners had acquired a valuable right after having been selected finally and confirmed on the post of Head-constables and no opportunity of hearing or show cause notice was given to the petitioners either before quashing the orders, dated September 18 & 19, 1980 or before issuing the order, dated April 6, 1983. The Service Tribunal was not justified in quashing the orders, dated September 18 & 19, 1980 against the petitioners or such persons who had derived benefit of such orders and had also completed Promotion Cadre Course long before this order was passed on June 15, 1982 and even if the Service Tribunal was taking the view that an illegality was committed in not taking the out-door test and interview by all the members of the Board, such grievance could have been considered only with regard to the persons who had filed appeals before them. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he had grievance against the order of the Service Tribunal and the order issued by the Dy. Inspector General of Police so far as they adversely affected the interest of the petitioners and they had no objection in case fresh Board is constituted and tests are taken so far as the appellants before the Service Tribunal were concerned. 13. I have also taken note of the fact that it would create unnecessary complications, waste of time and money of the Government and cause unnecessary hardship and injustice to the petitioners in case they are again called upon to undergo the process of whole qualifying examination again. According to the stand taken by the Government they have no grievance or objection in the selection and promotion of the petitioners for the post of Head-constables rather it has supported their case. In view of these circumstances it would be unnecessary for me to examine the niceties of the legal controversy raised in this case. According to the stand taken by the Government they have no grievance or objection in the selection and promotion of the petitioners for the post of Head-constables rather it has supported their case. In view of these circumstances it would be unnecessary for me to examine the niceties of the legal controversy raised in this case. The State has not challenged the order of the Service Tribunal and so far as the petitioners are concerned, they succeed on the short ground of violation of Rule of audi alteram partem. 14. In the result, all these 28 writ petitions are allowed. The order, dated June 15, 1982, passed by the Service Tribunal and order, dated April 6, 1983, issued by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur, are quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned. The selection and confirmation of the petitioners on the post of Head-constables shall be maintained. The State Government shall take action in pursuance to the order of the Service Tribunal, dated June 15, 1982, so far as Krishna Mohan, Ram Swaroop and Ram Singh are concerned in whose cases the appeals were allowed by the Service Tribunal. The parties shall bear their own costs.