JUDGMENT 1. - On 18.1.91, a notice was issued to the respondents for admission of the writ petition. Learned Addl. Government Advocate was directed to accept notice. He was required to inform the court about the factual position of P.C.C. which is said to have been undergone by the petitioners in the year 1972. On 23.1.91 learned Additional Govt. Advocate sought time and the case was adjourned to 25.1.91. A reply has been filed by the respondents. 2. As agreed to by both the parties, arguments were heard on the merits of the writ petition. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioners have made a statement that they were selected for promotion to the post of Head Constable. They had passed the qualifying test held by the duly constituted Board. After passing this test, the petitioners' names were brought on the approved list and they were asked to undergo promotion cadre course. This promotion cadre course was passed by the petitioners in the year 1972. The Board consisting of Sarvashri Ms. Pareek, Man Singh, Pratap Singh Ghantel and Malam Singh had taken test of the petitioners at the end of the Promotion Cadre course. The petitioner is now being again asked after a period of 19 years to under go the Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Head Constable after he has worked on this post for almost 19 years. 4. The petitioner has referred to a Writ Petition No. 1850/82 Bhagirath Singh v. Slate of Rajasthan , decided at the main seat of the High Court on 3.12.1987. In that case the court had lound that the reversion of the said petitioner after he bad passed the qualifying test and had undergone the Promotion Cadre Course was not justified. The Court directed that the petitioner would be considered in the light that he had already cleared qualifying test and undergone the promotion cadre course in the year 1972. If has also been stated that special leave petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on July 30, 1990. 5. In the reply filed before this Court today, the respondents have admitted the facts mentioned in para 3 of the petition regarding petitioner's having undergone Promotion Cadre Course and having successfully passed the same. If has also been stated that special leave petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on July 30, 1990. 5. In the reply filed before this Court today, the respondents have admitted the facts mentioned in para 3 of the petition regarding petitioner's having undergone Promotion Cadre Course and having successfully passed the same. It has how ever been mentioned that the petitioner was given promotion on temporary basis on the post of Head Constable after passing through the test. In para 5, it has been stated that the petitioner completed promotion cadre course in the year 1972 but the same was invalidated by the authorities and therefore, it is necessary for him to undergo the promotion cadre course w.e.f. 21.1.1991, The case of Shri Bhagirath Singh has been distinguished on the ground that Bhagirath Singh has been reverted, wheres the petitioner has not been reverted from the post of Head Constable. On that promise, the respondents have stated that the petitioner is under an obligation to undergo the promotion cadre course. 6. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Government Advocate was repeatedly asked to produce the record to prove that the earlier Promotion Cadre course successfully undergone by the petitioner has been invalidated. He how ever, expressed his inability to produce such a record and under the instructions of the Officer-in-charge stated that the said record has been destroyed. When he was asked to point out as to under what law, by whom and when the promotion cadre course under gone by the petitioner had been invalidated, he expressed his inability to give any reply. It is amazing that on the one hand the respondents have stated that the record by which earlier P.C.C. undergone by the petitioner has been destroyed and at the same time it has been stated that the same was invalidated by the authorities. Apparently, there is no reason whatsoever for asking the petitioner to under go Promotion Cadre course after a period of almost 19 years of the point of time when he had already undergone the Promotion Cadre course. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the Promotion Cadre course had in fact been held in the year 1972 and the petitioner had appeared there in and that was cleared by him successfully. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the Promotion Cadre course had in fact been held in the year 1972 and the petitioner had appeared there in and that was cleared by him successfully. No provision under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 and 1974 or the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 has been cited before the court to show that a person will have to under go the same course twice. It also does not appear to reason that after the petitioner has worked on the Post of Head Constable for 19 years, which is almost more than half of the total period of service which a Government servant normally fenders, he is now being asked to undergo the promotion cadre course and that too he had success fully completed the said course in 1972. 7. Shri Bhagirath Singh was a person, who had also under gone similar Promotion Cadre Course and in his case, the court has ruled that his reversion on the ground that he has not under gone P.C.C. was unjust and the court directed that he should be dealt with as it he had already cleared the qualifying test and had under gone the P.C.C. in 1972. The respondents have failed to explain as to how the case of petitioners is distinguishable qua that of Bhagirath Singh. An untenable reason which has been advanced for the so-called distinction is that Bhagirath Singh has been reverted, whereas the petitioners have not been reverted the reason has no relevance with reference to passing of P.C.C. in 1972. The fact remains that Bhagirath Singh had under gone the similar Promotion Cadre Course which had been undergone by the petitioners. An untenable reason which has been advanced for the so-called distinction is that Bhagirath Singh has been reverted, whereas the petitioners have not been reverted the reason has no relevance with reference to passing of P.C.C. in 1972. The fact remains that Bhagirath Singh had under gone the similar Promotion Cadre Course which had been undergone by the petitioners. Once P.C.C. undergone by Shri Bhagirath Singh has been held to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Rules and under the orders of the court, he is not required to undergo the P.C.C. again, there can be no justification for subjecting the petitioners to a different that the one which has been given to Shri Bhagirath Singh in the matter of P.C.C. Once the Division Bench of this Court had held in Bhagirath Singh's case that the departmental authorities could not require him to under-go the P.C.C. again and the decision of the Division Bench has been upheld by the Supreme Court, there could be no justification what so ever for asking the petitioners to under go the P.C.C. after having rendered 19 years of service. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The directions contained in the telegram. Annexure-1 asking the petitioners to undergo Promotion Cadre course again is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as having cleared the qualifying test and under gone the promotion cadre course in the year 1972.Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Allowed. *******