J. M. PANCHAL, J. ( 1 ) ). The petitioner i. e. Unwedsinh Dadbha Jadeja joined service as a Police Constable in the year 1954 He was promoted to the post of 2nd Grade Unarmed Head Constable in the year 1968. Again in the year 1978 he was promoted to the post of last Grade Unarmed Head Constable. The Special Inspector General of Police Junagadh Range Junagadh passed an order dated February 2 1993 promoting five 1st Grade Head Constables including the petitioner to the post of Police Subinspector on ad hoc basis. In the said order it was recited that the promotion was confined to Junagadh District and that 1st Grade Head Constables who were promoted on ad hoc basis were not entitled to any seniority nor were entitled to promotion to higher post. It was further recited in the said order that 1st Grade Head Constables promoted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector on ad hoc basis would not get any right to continue on the post of Police Sub-Inspector and on availability of regularly selected Police Sub-Inspectors they would be liable to be reverted to their original posts. A copy of the order dated February 2 1993 passed by the Special Inspector General of Police Junagadh is produced at Annexure-I along with Affidavit-inreply field on behalf of the respondents. In pursuance of the a hove referred to order the District Superintendent of Police Junagadh passed a consequential Office Order dated February 3 1993 conveying the order passed by the Special Inspector General of Police Junagadh Range Junagadh. The consequential office order passed by the Dist. Superintendent of Police is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-A to the petition. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner was posted as Police Sub-Inspector on February 4 1993 at Prabhas-Patan Police Station. He was subsequently transferred as Reader P. S. I. to Sub-Divisional Police Officer Veraval. ( 3 ) ). By a communication dated March 18 1994 Office of Director General of Police State of Gujarat Ahmedabad informed all concerned that ad hoc promotion granted should not be continued for a period of more than one year. In view of the said communication Special Inspector General of Police Junagadh Range Junagadh passed an order dated March 31 1994 reverting the petitioner and others to the post of Unarmed 1st Grade Head Constable. In view of the said communication Special Inspector General of Police Junagadh Range Junagadh passed an order dated March 31 1994 reverting the petitioner and others to the post of Unarmed 1st Grade Head Constable. The order dated March 31 1994 passed by the Special Inspector General of Police Junagadh Range Junagadh is produced on the record of the petition at Annexureii along with the Affidavit-in-Reply. In pursuance of the aforesaid order another consequential Office Order was issued by the D. S. P. Junagadh conveying the order passed by the Special Inspector General of Police Junagadh Range Junagadh. The consequential Office Order passed by the D. S. P. Junagadh is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-B to the petition. ( 4 ) ). The petitioner has claimed that the order of reversion is on the face of it arbitrary discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. After referring to Paragraph-61 contained in Gujarat Police Manual 1975 Vol. I Administration (First Edition) the petitioner has contended that the order of reversion is absolutely unwarranted uncalled for premature arbitrary unjust unfair and liable to be set aside more particularly in view of the Government Resolution No. MAHAK11092/2088/s dated March 31 1994 The petitioner has asserted that as on today several posts of Police Sub-Inspector are vacant not only in the State of Gujarat but also in Junagadh District and as regularly selected Police Sub-Inspectors are not available the petitioner should not have been reverted to the post of 1st Grade Unarmed Head Constable. The petitioner has pleaded that Rules governing promotion of 1st Grade Unarmed Head Constable to the post of Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed) should be construed to mean that competent officer has power to promote 1 Grade Unarmed Head Constable to the post in question by relaxing the Rules and therefore it must be deemed that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Police Sub Inspector legally and on regular basis and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the premises by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order to quash and set aside the reversion order dated February 3 1994 produced at Annexure-B to the petition. In the premises by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order to quash and set aside the reversion order dated February 3 1994 produced at Annexure-B to the petition. The petitioner has further prayed to declare that the reversion of the petitioner is premature arbitrary illegal unjust unfair and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in new of the Government Resolution No. MAHAK/ 1029/2088/s dated March 31 1994 ( 5 ) ). Affidavit in opposition on behalf of the respondents is filed by Mr. N. K. Bhandari Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration) controverting the claim advanced by the petitioner in the petition. In the reply affidavit it is pointed out that the petitioner who is unarmed Head Constable Gr. I was promoted on purely ad hoc basis to the post of Police Sub-Inspector for administrative reasons and in public interest though he was not qualified to be promoted to the said post and thus the petitioner having been promoted illegally and contrary to the statutory rules governing promotion of Unarmed Head Constable Grade-I to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) the petition is liable to be dismissed. The deponent has asserted that after the petitioner and other five 1st Grade Unarmed Head Constables were promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Police Sub- Inspector four other regular appointments in the cadre of Police Sub-Inspector in Junagadh District were made between June 1993 and October 1993 and in view of the policy of the State Government as reflected in the Government Resolution dated October 14 1993 the petitioner who had completed one year as Police Sub Inspector on nd hoc basis was not entitled to continue on the post in question. In the reply affidavit (sic.) it is emphasised that as the petitioner is not qualified to be promoted to the post of Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed) the petition is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) ). Mr. In the reply affidavit (sic.) it is emphasised that as the petitioner is not qualified to be promoted to the post of Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed) the petition is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) ). Mr. M. T. Kikani learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) on temporary basis after taking into consideration his unblemished service record and as there are sufficient number of vacancies available in Junagadh District so far as post of Police Sub Inspector is concerned reversion order passed by the Special Inspector General of Police Junagadh district deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel submitted that Rules governing promotion of 1st Grade Unarmed Head Constable to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) should be construed to mean that the Deputy Inspector General of Police has power to make appointment on ad hoc basis in relaxation of statutory requirements and under the circumstances promotion of the petitioner to the post of Police Sub Inspector should be treated as one having been effected legally and on regular basis. It was further contended that during the time the petitioner discharged duties as Police Sub-Inspector nothing adverse was found against him and therefore all of a sudden the petitioner should not have been reverted to the post of 1st Grade Unarmed Head Constable at the fag end of his career more particularly when sufficient number of vacancies exist in the cadre of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) as far as Junagadh district is concerned. Lastly it was submitted that the order of reversion is in breach of provisions contained in sub-rule (9) read with sub-rules (1) and (8) of Rule 61 of Chapter-II of the 20 Gujarat Police Manual 1975 Vol. I and therefore the petition should be allowed. In support of his submissions learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of (1) State of Haryana and Ors. v. Mahabir Prasad Sharma and Ors. Junagadh Today 1994 S. C. 100 and (2) Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana of Ors. Judgment Today 1994 S. C. 157. ( 7 ) ). Mr. In support of his submissions learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of (1) State of Haryana and Ors. v. Mahabir Prasad Sharma and Ors. Junagadh Today 1994 S. C. 100 and (2) Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana of Ors. Judgment Today 1994 S. C. 157. ( 7 ) ). Mr. A. R. Dave learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that having regard to the situation which was then prevailing in Junagadh district as mentioned in Para-6 of the affidavit-in-reply the petitioner and others who were then discharging duties as 1st Grade Unarmed Head Constable were promoted to the post of Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed) illegally and in breach of statutory rules governing promotion and thus the petitioner having no right to hold the post reversion order should not be set aside by the Court. It was submitted that statutory rules governing the promotion of 1st Grade Unarmed Head Constable to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) do not empower the Deputy Inspector General of Police to give promotion to a 1st Grade Unarmed Head Constable by relaxing the rules and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim the reliefs prayed for in the petition. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that after the petitioner and other persons were promoted on ad hoc basis as Police Sub-Inspectors without following the prescribed recruitment rules 4 other regular appointments in the cadre of Police Sub-Inspector in Junagadh District were made and as the petitioner and others were appointed contrary to the statutory rules the petitioner has been reverted. Lastly it was argued that existence of vacancies in the cadre of Police Sub-Inspector would not till the balance in favour of the petitioner as he is not qualified to be promoted to the said post and the petition should be dismissed were particularly in view of the instructions of the Government contained in its Resolution dated October 14 1993 ( 8 ) ). In order to resolve the controversy centering in the petition it would be necessary to refer to certain salient features of the Police Sub-Inspectors (Unarmed) Recruitment Rules 1980 (Rules for short) which have been made by the Government of Gujarat in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (h) of Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 Rule-2 provides that the appointment to the Post of Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed Branch) in the Gujarat State Police Service Class-III in the Police Department shall be made either (i) by direct selection on the result of the competitive examination held by the Gujarat Public Service Commission; or (ii) by promotion of Head Constable (Unarmed) on passing the Sub Inspectors course of the Police Training Colleges; or (iii) by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons working in the cadre of Head Constables (Unarmed Branch) who have passed the departmental qualifying examination. Rule-5 provides that to be eligible for selection for the Sub-Inspectors course at the Police Training Colleges under clause (ii) of Rule-2 Head Constables (Unarmed) must (a) have passed the standard IX examination of a School; (b) have served for three years as Head Constables; (c) not have completed 40 years of age on the 1st day of November of the year in which selection is made. The Selection Committee for the selection of Head Constables for the Sub Inspectors course consists of (a) Inspector General of Police (b) Director of Anti-Corruption Bureau and (c) Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City and this is quite evident from the sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules. ( 9 ) ). It is an admitted position that the petitioner is not qualified to be promoted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed ). Admittedly the petitioner has neither passed Sub-Inspectors course at Police Training College nor the departmental qualifying examination. The Rules do not empower the competent authority to relax the qualifications which are prescribed for promotion of a Head Constable (Unarmed) to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed ). In view of this matter the petitioner is/was not entitled to be promoted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed ). As pointed out in the affidavit-in-reply. The Rules do not empower the competent authority to relax the qualifications which are prescribed for promotion of a Head Constable (Unarmed) to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed ). In view of this matter the petitioner is/was not entitled to be promoted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed ). As pointed out in the affidavit-in-reply. in the month of December 1992 because of law and order situation then prevailing in the State of Gujarat in the wake of demolition of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya had become necessary for the authorities to have more effective police force by increasing actual strength of police personnel everywhere and therefore the petitioner and others were promoted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) purely on ab hoc basis and temporarily. One who is not qualified to be promoted cannot insist that he should be continued on the promotional post irrespective of statutory requirements. In the case of State of Haryana and Ors. a (supra) the appellant State had requisitioned to the Subordinate Selection Committee to recruit by direct recruitment 11 candidates to the post of Chief Inspector. White selecting 1 12 candidates the Committee also kept 4 more candidates in the waiting list. The respondents were placed at Sr. nos. 8 to 11 in waiting list. The High Court white disposing of the matter held that keeping the candidates in the waiting list did not create any right in their favour in the post but if the appellant for administrative exigencies wanted to file up the post on ad hoc basis then it was open to the appellants to appoint the candidates waiting in the list in the order of merit. White disposing of the appeal filed by the State and others the Supreme Court has held that an option was given to the appellants by the High Court and if the appellants did not want to make any appointments to the post the question of considering the claims of the waiting list candidates would not arise. The Supreme Court found that the direction given by the High Court to appoint the candidates from the waiting list if the appellant wanted to fill up the post on ad hoc basis was not illegal. 9 In my view the principle laid down in the above quoted decision would not apply to the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court found that the direction given by the High Court to appoint the candidates from the waiting list if the appellant wanted to fill up the post on ad hoc basis was not illegal. 9 In my view the principle laid down in the above quoted decision would not apply to the facts of the present case. As observed earlier the petitioner is not qualified to be promoted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) and therefore the action of the respondents in reverting him to the post of 1st Grade Unarmed Head Constable cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. ( 10 ) ). In the case of Rishal Singh (supra) to the appellant was recruited as a Constable. He was temporarily promoted as Head Constable by an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police with immediate effect in an existing vacancy. In the order of appointment it was stated that the appellant had no right to claim seniority over his senior and he was liable to be reverted at any time without any formality of show cause notice. Subsequently when he was sought to be reverted as a Constable he filed a petition in the High Court. The High Court dismissed it in limine. On consideration of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 the Supreme Court found that the appellant was appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in exercise of discretion vested in him by Rule 13. 8 (2) of the 30 Rules which laid down an exception. The Supreme Court found that passing of training course was necessary but in case of candidate not passing such test discretion was given in Rule 13. 8 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police to relax mandatory requirements of passing of training course that too within the quota and promote a constable as head constable. In the light of provisions of 40 Rule 13. 8 of the Rules and affidavit-in reply and counter-affidavit the Supreme Court has held that there was Rule for appointment on ad hoc basis and therefore the promotion of the appellant in the said case was on regular basis. ( 11 ) ). In my view the principles laid down in the above quoted decision would also not apply to the facts of the present case. ( 11 ) ). In my view the principles laid down in the above quoted decision would also not apply to the facts of the present case. The statutory Rules governing promotion of the head constable (unarmed) to the post of Police Sub Inspector (unarmed) do not provide for any relaxation in the matter of promotion and the competent authority has no power to give promotion to a head constable (unarmed) in relaxation of statutory rules. It is true that there are vacancies in the cadre of Police Sub-Inspector (unarmed ). It However existence of vacancies itself would not entitle the petitioner to continue on the promotional post more particularly when the petitioner does not possess the qualification for being promoted to the said post. Having regard to the situation then prevailing coupled with the fact that no qualified head constable was available for being promoted to the post of Police Sub Inspector (unarmed) the petitioner was promoted to the post of Police Sub Inspector purely on temporary and ad hoc basis by giving complete go-by to the statutory requirements. This is quite evident from what is stated in the affidavit-in-reply. In my view as the petitioner is even today not qualified to be promoted to the post of Police Subinspector (unarmed) the reliefs prayed. for in the petition cannot be granted. The object purpose and intent of the Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Recruitment Rules 1980 enacted in exercise of powers under Clause (b) of Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act 1967 is to afford equal opportunity for public employment or appointment to the eligible similarly situated competing persons including candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe and also to provide impartial selection by the Selection Committee consisting of high officers of the Police Department. Appointment or promotion to the public services dehors or in violation of the recruitment rules with not only offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but also frustrate the very purpose of enacting the rules leading to frustration and disappointment to eligible meritorious candidates. Such a practice is illegal irregular and deserves to be discouraged and prevented. The statutory rules are required to be followed scrupulously for the purpose of selection of candidates for appointment as well as for promotion. Such a practice is illegal irregular and deserves to be discouraged and prevented. The statutory rules are required to be followed scrupulously for the purpose of selection of candidates for appointment as well as for promotion. Any appointment or promotion to any post dehors the rules or without being selected as per the statutory rules with have to be held as irregular and invalid. Admittedly the petitioner does not hold any of the qualification for being promoted to the post of Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed) and therefore the petition is liable to be rejected. In view of the above discussion the petition fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .