JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14th July, 1987 i.e. Annexure - 11 whereby the petitioner was reverted from the post of Sub-Inspector to that of Assistant Sub-Inspector, in pursuance of the order issued by the Dy.Inspector, in pursuance of the order issued by the Dy.Inspector General of Police (Headquarters) Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 13th July, 1987 and the petitioner has also challenged the exclusion of his name from the select list dated 28th October, 1987 on the basis of which the candidates were to be sent for Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. 2. The petitioner has come with a case that he was a holder of the qualification of M.A., LL.B. and was initially appointed as Constable on temporary basis vide order dated 31st December, 1974 with effect from 1.1.1975 and was sub,sequently confirmed on the post of Constable with effect from 28th May, 1979 vide order 'dated 2nd August, 1982. The petitioner states that he had been promoted as Head Constable on urgent temporary basis by the order dated 9th November, 1977 and he passed the qualifying examination as well as the Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Head Constable on 26th November, 1983 and was then confirmed as Head Constable with effect from 26th November, 1983 vide order dated 12th September, 1984. The petitioner's case is that he was further promoted as Asstt. Sub-Inspector on urgent temporary basis vide order dated 1.10.1984 issued under the signatures of the Superintendent of Police(I), Computer Centre, Rajasthan, Jaipur. According to the petitioner he was then promoted as Sub- Inspector on temporary basis vide order dated 9th November, 1985. 3. The petitioner's initial appointment as Constable was in the Crime Branch. In the year 1976 a new Section, namely, Electronic Data Processing (EDP) Cell came into existence as a part of the Crime Branch and the petitioner was given a posting in the EDP Cell and he was also promoted as Head Constable in the EDP Cell itself. While the petitioner was working as Head Constable in the EDP Cell he was sent for training in computer operation by the Government at Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad where the petitioner underwent training in computer operations from 6th March, 1978 to 19th March, 1978. While the petitioner was working as Head Constable in the EDP Cell he was sent for training in computer operation by the Government at Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad where the petitioner underwent training in computer operations from 6th March, 1978 to 19th March, 1978. On 12th February, 1980, a separate computer centre was established in the Police Department and the petitioner continued to work in the Computer Centre as head Constable and thereafter as Asstt. Sub-Inspector. In the year 1987, the computer centre was renamed as State Crime Record Bureau(S.C.R.B.) and an independent Dy.Inspector General of Police is its Director. This State Crime Record Bureau has two attached units, namely, Finger Print Bureau and State Modus Operandi Bureau. The Finger Print Bureau is an independent unit for the purpose of promotion, seniority, appointment etc., and according to the petitioner it has no relation whatsoever with the State Crime Record Bureau. Similarly appointments, promotions and seniority etc. in the State Crime Record Bureau are made within the S.C.R.B. itself. The petitioner's case is-that it is only for the purpose of qualifying examination for the post of Sub-Inspector that the candidates of C.I.D.(CB) and the employees of State Crime Record Bureau have been put together and otherwise they have never been treated as part of the CID(CB) of the Police Department and in this regard the petitioner has placed reliance on the letter dated 26th August,1987 sent by the Dy. Secretary Home(Gr.II) Department to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur which is on record as Annex. 5. The petitioner has referred to one more letter written by the Chief Accounts Officer, Police headquarters to the Director, State Crime Record Bureau on 26th October, 1987 which is on record as Annex.6. Thus the petitioner has tried to make out a case that the State Crime Record Bureau is an independent separate range in the Police Department and it has no relation whatsoever with the CID(CB) or other range so far as the appointments, promotions, seniority etc., are concerned and the petitioner has alleged that even before the formation of Bureau when Computer Centre was functioning, the Computer Centre was treated as an independent range. 4. 4. The petitioner's case is that for the year 1987-88 vacancies for the post of Sub-Inspector(Civil Police), SI(AP) and Platoon Commanders (RAC) were deter,mined and an order dated 4th June, 1987 constituting the Boards for holding qualifying examination was issued by the respondent No.2 in terms of the order dated 4th June, 1987, Annex.8. It is also stated in para 3 of this order that candidates of State Crime Record Bureau will appear in the test alongwith the candidates of C1D(CB) range. The petitioner applied for appearing in this qualifying examination and qualified the qualifying examination Part-I as contemplated by Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules of 1974. Thereafter the petitioner was called upon to appear in Part-II of the aforesaid qualifying examination i.e. interview and service record including ACR. The petitioner has stated that he also passed Part-II examination and the result was declared, but a letter dated 22nd August, 1987 was sent by the Chairman of the Board of Selection to the Dyinspector General of Police, CID(CB) and in this letter, the petitioner's name does not appear. The petitioner has stated that this letter contains two lists; list-1 is of two candidates of Scheduled Caste and list-2 contains the names of 11 candidates of general category. The petitioner has stated that in the general category, the name of one Shri Gulam Navi has been shown at serial No.11 and said Shri Gulam Navi is junior to him because Shri Gulam Navi was promoted on the post of Head Constable in September, 1979 while the petitioner had been promoted on the post of Head Constable in the year 1977 itself. A copy of this letter dated 28th October, 1987 is on record as Annex.10. Thus the petitioner is aggrieved against the exclusion of his name in the letter dated 28th October,1987, Annex.10 which is a document enlisting the candidates who have qualified on the basis of the result of the prescribed tests and interviews held under Rule 24 and 26 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 and the name have been arranged in the order of seniority. 5. 5. The petitioner has also raised the grievance that while the aforesaid process of selection was going on and the written examination as a part of the aforesaid qualifying examination was fixed for 12th July, 1987, by an order dated 14th July, 1987 issued by the Director, State Crime Record Bureau, Rajasthan in pursuance of the order of the Dy.Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 13th July, 1987, the petitioner who was working as a Sub-Inspector was reverted as Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police and the petitioner has also challenged this order dated 14th July, 1987. Of course the order of the Dy.Inspector General of Police(Headquarters) dated 13th July,1987 has not been placed on record by either of the parties. The petitioner submitted a representation against his reversion before respondent No.3 on 22nd July,1987 and yet another representation was made to the respondent No.2 on 3rd November, 1987 but no reply thereto was given to the petitioner and in these circumstances aggrieved from the orders dated 14th July, 1987, Annex.11 and 28th October, 1987, Annex.10, the present writ petition was filed. 6. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been admitted in para 10 of the petition that the petitioner has passed part-II examination also and regarding the inclusion of the name of Shri Gulam Navi, all that has been stated is that the petitioner has not impleaded Shri Gulam Navi as a party and, therefore, nothing can be inquired at the back of Shri Gulam Navi and the writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable because of the non-joinder of the necessary party. It has also been stated in para 12 that no one has been selected from State Crime Record Bureau in Annex.10. No reason for passing the reversion order dated 14th July, 1987 has been disclosed in the reply and the respondents have rest contended by saying that the petitioner's promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police was purely on temporary-adhoc basis and hence there is no infirmity in the reversion. It has also been submitted that no decision has been taken on the representation of the petitioner. It has been stated under the heading of 'additional plea' at page 5 of the reply that there were 13 posts of Sub-Inspectors and 16 candidates had qualified for appointment/promotion. It has also been submitted that no decision has been taken on the representation of the petitioner. It has been stated under the heading of 'additional plea' at page 5 of the reply that there were 13 posts of Sub-Inspectors and 16 candidates had qualified for appointment/promotion. 13 persons were appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector CID(CB) and the petitioner could not be appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector because he was not senior to the persons appointed. It has been further stated that the selections/promotions were made as per the relevant rules. 7. A rejoinder to the said reply has also been filed by the petitioner and further reply to this rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and have perused the relevant documents. It is the admitted position that the petitioner had passed Part-I as well as Part-II of the qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and as per the scheme of the Rules of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974, the procedure for appointment by promotion has been given in Part-V of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 23 relates to eligibility for promotion which the petitioner undoubtedly possesses. The procedure of selection has been given in Rule 24 and according to Rule 24 after the vacancies to be filled by promotion are determined under Rule 9, the Board is to be constituted and the Board prepares a list containing names not exceeding 5 times out of the senior-most members eligible for promotion who have passed part-I of the qualifying examination specified in Rule 26. The Board so constituted considers the cases of all the persons included in the list after interviewing all of them and prepares a list of suitable members in order of seniority from amongst those who have secured 45% marks in qualifying examination in Part-II and 50% aggregate of the total marks of the qualifying examinations, Part-I and Part-II to the extent of 11/2 times of such posts as determined to be filled under Rule 9. Rule 24(2) is reproduced as under: "24(2) The Boards constituted under this Rule shall consider the cases of all the persons included in the list, interviewing all of them and shall prepare a list containing names of suitable candidates in order of seniority, who secure 45 percent marks in qualifying examination part II and 50 percent aggregate of the total marks of the qualifying examination part I and II upto one and half times and number of such posts as determined to be filled under Rule 9". 9. Shri N.L. Pareek, Addl. G.A. has been fair enough to place before me the final result-sheet of Part-I and II (written, outdoor, record and interview) qualifying examination of Head Constables/ASIs enclosed with a letter dated 3rd March,1989 addressed to one Shri Hetram Meena, Dy.Superintendent of Police, by the Dy. Inspector General of Police(Headquarters) Jaipur and as per this final result-sheet out of 18 who had appeared two candidates named at serial No.13 and 17 had failed and others 16 candidates have passed. In this result-sheet, the petitioner's name appears at serial No.18 and if the two candidates who had failed are excluded he is amongst the 16 successful candidates and so far as the grand total of the marks obtained out of 250 marks are concerned, the petitioner has obtained 136 marks and amongst these 16 candidates there are only 4 candidates who have obtained more marks then the petitioner and they are one Shri Kamal Kishore who has obtained 1411/2 marks, Shri Navala Ram who has obtained 1381/2 marks, Shri Girdhari Lal who has obtained 1501/2 marks and Shri Chandrabhan who has obtained 1391/2 marks. After these four candidates there are two candidates, namely, Ram Singh and Uma Shanker i.e. the petitioner and both of them have obtained 136 marks. In this view of the matter had the names been arranged in the order of merit then the petitioner and Shri Ram Singh would have obtained position after the above referred four candidates. Shri Pareek has, however, submitted that since there were only 13 vacancies and the requirement of Rule 24(2) is to include the names in the order of seniority, petitioner's name could not be included amongst the first 11 candidates in the general category because there were two vacancies for Scheduled Caste candidates and accordingly the petitioner's name was excluded. Shri Pareek has, however, submitted that since there were only 13 vacancies and the requirement of Rule 24(2) is to include the names in the order of seniority, petitioner's name could not be included amongst the first 11 candidates in the general category because there were two vacancies for Scheduled Caste candidates and accordingly the petitioner's name was excluded. Thus final result-sheet of Part-I and II of the qualifying examination alongwith the photostat copy of the covering letter dated 31st March, 1989 as produced by Shri N.L. Pareek, is taken on record. The requirement of Rule 24(2) is of course to include the names in the order of seniority but it shows that the names of the candidates on the basis of the qualifying examination have to be included upto 11/2 times the number of posts determined to be filled under Rule 9. In this view of the matter if the case of the respondents is accepted at its best, there being 13 vacancies in all the list should be prepared upto 19 (13+6) in number at least, may be in order of seniority. Even if a separate list was to be prepared against the vacancies which were available in general category then also a list of 16 (11+5) candidates atleast was required to be prepared and had the list been prepared under Rule 24(2), the petitioner being one amongst the 16 successful candidates would have certainly found his name in this order Annex.10 even if the names were to be arranged in order of seniority. Again a perusal of the document Annex.10 dated 28th October, 1987 would show that it is not an order of appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police; all that the list contains is that the candidates named therein had qualified on the basis of the result of the prescribed test and interview held under Rule 24 and 26 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974, and it is this list which is made use of for the purpose of sending the candidates for Promotion Cadre Course and, therefore, had the petitioner's name been included in this list he could have been sent to the Promotion Cadre Course for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, as the other candidates named in the aforesaid order dated 28th October, 1987 were sent. The question of actual regular promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector definitely arises after passing the Promotion Cadre Course and, therefore, the rule making authority has rightly taken note. that the list should be prepared 11/2 times the number of vacancies deter,mined under Rule 9 so that out of the candidates who are able to pass the Promotion Cadre Course, the selection by promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police can be made in order to seniority thereafter, from amongst those who are able to pass Promotion Cadre Course. The eventuality cannot be ruled out that out of certain candidates who are sent for promotion Cadre Course some may not be able to pass the Promotion Cadre Course successfully and in that event the candidates who may be at low position in the seniority but are able to pass the Promotion Cadre Course may also be promoted. In case all the candidates who are sent for Promotion Cadre Course successfully pass the examination naturally the persons who are low in the seniority as compared to the number of available vacancies will have to wait for their turn, nevertheless a candidate who has passed at the qualifying examination Part-I and H and if his name can be included in the list of such successful candidates to the tune of 11/2 times, the number of vacancies determined under Rule 9, his name cannot be excluded at the very threshold of the preparing such list on the ground that the list will be prepared only upto the number of vacancies because the list has been extended by the operation of the rule itself to go upto 11/2 times the number of vacancies available and the rule making authority has taken care of the situation in which the persons who have qualified both parts are not made to repeat and reappear in the qualifying examinations in case their names can be included in the list to the extent of 11/2 times the number of the vacancies available. The scheme of the Rules of 1974 as a whole and particularly Sub- rule 2 of Rule.24 and Sub-rules 4 and 5 of Rule 24 also lends strength to the submission that the candidates whose names are included in such list shall be sent for promotion Cadre Course in accordance with seniority. The scheme of the Rules of 1974 as a whole and particularly Sub- rule 2 of Rule.24 and Sub-rules 4 and 5 of Rule 24 also lends strength to the submission that the candidates whose names are included in such list shall be sent for promotion Cadre Course in accordance with seniority. I, therefore, find that in accordance with Rule 24(2) read with Rule 24(4) and (5), the petitioner's name ought to have been included in the list of the general candidates so that he could also be sent for Promotion Cadre Course for promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police according to his turn and the exclusion of the petitioner's name from the list No.2 in the document dated 28th October,1987 Annex.10 was unlawful and unjustified. As a matter of fact the whole list should have been acted upon in accordance with seniority. Whereas there were only 16 candidates who had qualified not only the petitioner but even the names of others to the extent of 11x11/2 = 16 approximately should have been included and to that extent the list as was prepared by document dated 28th October, 1987 is illegal so far as it excludes the name of the petitioner and the others who would came in the range of 16 in number because the total number of vacancies determined are admittedly 13, out of which two were for Scheduled Caste and 11 for general category. 10. So far as the petitioner's reversion from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police is concerned, no material has been placed on record before this Court as to what precipitated the aforesaid reversion of the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police to that of Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police and except harping on the power to revert the petitioner because he had not been appointed on the regular basis earlier and was holding the post of Sub-Inspector on the urgent temporary basis, nothing has been placed on record to justify the reversion order. One could understand and justify the reversion order. One could understand and justify the reversion had the regularly selected candidates been available at the time when the reversion order was passed and had the petitioner been reverted to make room for the regularly selected and appointed/promoted candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector. One could understand and justify the reversion order. One could understand and justify the reversion had the regularly selected candidates been available at the time when the reversion order was passed and had the petitioner been reverted to make room for the regularly selected and appointed/promoted candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector. In this view of the matter, even if it is found that the respondents had the power to revert the petitioner because he was holding the post on urgent temporary basis only, I find that the power has been exercised in arbitrary manner in reverting the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector and, therefore, the order dated 14th July, 1987 passed in pursuance of the Dy.Inspector General of Police (headquarters) letter dated 13th July, 1987 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 14th July,1987 (Annex.11) passed in pursuance of order dated 13th July,1987 is quashed and set aside and it is directed that the petitioner shall be treated to be continuing as Sub-Inspector of Police on urgent temporary Oasis as if the order dated 14th July,1987 had never been passed against him and all consequential benefits shall be paid and given to the petitioner. So far as the order dated 28th October, 1987 Annex.10, is concerned, I have already held that the exclusion of the name of the petitioner from this list was unlawful and it is, therefore, directed that the names upto 16 in number be included in this list dated 28th October, 1987 including that of the petitioner. The petitioner and such other candidates whose names are now included in the list may also be sent for Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and in case the petitioner and any of the other candidates who are able to pass the Promotion Cadre Course even now, all consequential benefits be granted to them to which they would have been entitled had their names been included in the list dated 28th October,1987 and had they passed the Promotion Cadre Course alongwith the other candidates whose name find place in the list dated 28th October, 1987. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******