Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1779 (RAJ)

Gokul Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2001-11-07

KHEM CHAND SHARMA, M.R.CALLA

body2001
Honble CALLA, J.–This Letters Patent Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.4.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition was dismissed. (2). The appellant, who was original petitioner before the learned Single Judge (shall be referred to as petitioner hereinafter) claiming to be a graduate, was holding the post of Asstt. Sub Inspector since June, 1988 and had also been confirmed on the said post later on. The said post is a post under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1989) -a post created under the Rules of 1989. Prior to his promotion as Asstt. Sub Inspector, he was a confirmed Head Constable under the Rules in force. Head Constable is a post in the channel of promotion for further promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector and still next higher post is that of Inspector for which the Sub-Inspector is the next lower post in the channel of promotion. So far as the post of Sub-Inspector under Section-II, Mewar Bhil Corps (M.B.C.) of the Schedule-I of the Rules of 1989, is concerned, the appointments are required to be made 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment and the eligibility for promotion is either seven years of continuous service as Head Constable or 5 years of continuous service on the said post, if passed higher secondary examination or any other examination declared equivalent thereto by the Government, or 4 years continuous service with graduation. (3). The procedure for appointment by promotion has been prescribed under Part-V of the scheme of the Rules of 1989. Rule 26 provides the eligibility for promotion, Rule 27 is the procedure of selection, Rule 28 provides for the special nomination for promotion cadre course and Rule 30 deals with the promotion cadre course. Promotions are made under Rule 31 and Rule 36 provides for seniority. Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989 is reproduced as under:- ``28. Rule 26 provides the eligibility for promotion, Rule 27 is the procedure of selection, Rule 28 provides for the special nomination for promotion cadre course and Rule 30 deals with the promotion cadre course. Promotions are made under Rule 31 and Rule 36 provides for seniority. Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989 is reproduced as under:- ``28. Special nomination for promotion cadre course- Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-rule (1) to (3) of rule 27 above: (a) Nomination for promotion cadre course for next higher rank up to Sub-Inspector in Section I and Section III and upto Platoon Commander in Section II and Section IV of Rule-4 upto 10% of the vacancies to be filled in by promotion in a particular year, may be made by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police in case of those who have shown outstanding work in the anti-dacoity, anti-smuggling or in any special field of Police work including performance in Games and Sports, or have put in not less than 20 years service exclusively as member of the service and also have exceptionally good and unblemished record of service with integrity: Provided that no member of the service shall be nominated more than once on account of 20 years service as mentioned above. (b) The Government may nominate for Promotion Cadre Course upto 10 percent of the vacancies by promotion in a particular year from amongst the member of service holding substantive rank from the rank of Sub-Inspector/platoon Commander to Supervisor/Inspector/Company Commanders rank and from Sub- Inspector/Supervisor to Inspector on the recommendation of the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police who have shown outstanding work in the anti-dacoity, anti-smuggling or in any special field of Police work including performance in games and sports or have put in not less than 20 years service exclusively as members of the service and also have exceptionally good and unblemished record of service with integrity: Provided that no member of the service shall be nominated more than once on account of 20 years service as mentioned above. (4). It was on 10.12.1990 that in the matter of special promotion, popularly known as gallantry promotion for distinguished services under Rule 28 (a) of the Rules of 1989, the petitioner was nominated for special promotion for the outstanding services rendered by him. (4). It was on 10.12.1990 that in the matter of special promotion, popularly known as gallantry promotion for distinguished services under Rule 28 (a) of the Rules of 1989, the petitioner was nominated for special promotion for the outstanding services rendered by him. Although, this letter dated 10.12.1990 sent by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Jaipur Jaipur to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Jaipur in December, 1990 itself, an order was passed on 20.7.1992, appointing the petitioner as a Sub-Inspector by special nomination for the promotion cadre course, on adhoc basis. This order dated 20.7.1992 is a composite order of appointment by special nomination for promotion, for sending the petitioner to the promotion cadre course and also giving him the posting at Jaipur City with the further mention in the body of the order itself that he will be deemed to be regularly promoted only after passing the promotion cadre course. Thus, while functioning as Sub-Inspector under order dated 20.7.1992 as above, the petitioner passed the promotion cadre course in February, 1993. No further order was passed for him after passing of the promotion cadre course and the petitioner continued as a Sub-Inspector. In the year 1997, an order was passed on 7.12.1997, including the names mentioned therein in the approved list for promotion to the post of Inspector and according promotion to them. However, the petitioners names was not included in this list, despite the petitioners representation dated 3.12.1997, on the ground that he did not possess the eligibility for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector. However, the petitioners names was not included in this list, despite the petitioners representation dated 3.12.1997, on the ground that he did not possess the eligibility for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector. At this juncture, the petitioner filed the writ petition on 19.1.1998 with the prayers as under:- (A) By an appropriate writ, order of direction it may be declared that the petitioner who is graduate and having five years service to his credit on 1.7.1997, hence he is entitled to appear in the qualifying examination, held for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police; (B) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby to declare that since the petitioner obtained 50% marks in aggregate in Part-I and Part-II of qualifying examination, therefore, his name should be included in the select list for nomination for promotion cadre course; (C) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby to declare that since his name appears under the zone of selected candidates, therefore, he should be nominated for undergoing P.C.C.; (D) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby to direct the respondents to prepare a seniority list as per provisions of Rule 31, 34 and 36 of the Rules of 1989 and after circulating the seniority list, persons to the p.C.C. should be nominated as per proper seniority; (E) By issuing an appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature thereof and thereby to declare that the petitioner being under the zone of consideration and he obtained required 50% marks in qualifying examination Part-I and Part-II, therefore, he be promoted to the rank of Inspector since his juniors were promoted with all retrospective benefits; (F) The cost of the writ petition be awarded to the petitioner; (G) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and just may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner. (5). The notices in the writ petition were issued on 10.3.1998 and the reply was required to be filed. However, no reply whatsoever was filed and the petition was decided and dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 6.4.1998. It is this order dated 6.4.1998 which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. (6). (5). The notices in the writ petition were issued on 10.3.1998 and the reply was required to be filed. However, no reply whatsoever was filed and the petition was decided and dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 6.4.1998. It is this order dated 6.4.1998 which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. (6). The appeal was admitted by the court after hearing the learned counsel Mr. Virendra Lodha, who appeared for the respondents on 11.11.1998. In this appeal, the appellant filed a circular dated 6.2.1996 as Annexure-8 and a memo dated 20.8.1998 was filed titled as `Cross objections on behalf of the respondents. It was stated in the so called `Cross objections that on account of large number of applications due to oversight/inadvertence, the appellant had been called to appear in the written examination for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector but while the process was going on, a communication was received from the Office of Dy. Inspector General, Jaipur, Range to AIG-I that the petitioner did not possess five years experience on the post of Sub-Inspector as he had passed the promotion cadre course for the post of Sub- Inspector on 5.2.1993 only and therefore, he was not eligible to appear in the written test for the post of Inspector and it was due to oversight that he was permitted to appear in the written test. It was further stated in the so called `Cross objections that the result was kept in sealed cover and he was never declared selected by the Selection Board for the post of Inspector in want of requisite experience. (7). Alongwith so called `Cross-objections, a document dated 25.11.1997 was filed as Annexure-R/3 and in this document, it has been held out that the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of eligible candidates for the post of Inspector because as on 1.4.1997, three persons including the petitioner at S. No. 2 had not completed the period of five years service from the date of their regular promotion as Sub- Inspector. In Column No.5 of this very letter, the date of the petitioners regular promotion as Sub-Inspector is mentioned as 5.2.1993 and his year of selection in the same order in Column No.6 is mentioned as 1991-92. (8). In Column No.5 of this very letter, the date of the petitioners regular promotion as Sub-Inspector is mentioned as 5.2.1993 and his year of selection in the same order in Column No.6 is mentioned as 1991-92. (8). It is already stated in the writ petition itself that on 23rd and 24.11.1997, the petitioner had appeared in the written test for promotion to the post of Inspector and on 24.11.1997, the result was announced wherein he was declared successful. On 25th and 26.11.1997, the out-door examination including P.T., parade etc. was held whereat also the petitioner was declared successful. On 28.11.1997, the petitioner was called for interview and the result of the interview was declared by the Chairman of the interview was declared by the Chairman of the Board wherein 250 candidates were declared as selected including the petitioner and it was on 29.11.1997 to the utter surprise of the petitioner, a list of only 248 persons was affixed on the Notice Board in Police Lines, Jaipur wherein the name of the petitioner was missing. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Member Secretary of the Board and submitted his representation dated 3.12.1997 and also appeared before the Chairman of the Selection Board. (9). These factual allegations have not been controverted even while filing the objections to which the reference has been made hereinabove and all that has been said in these objections is that it was on account of the oversight that the petitioner was called to appear in the written test but his result was kept in the sealed cover and as such for all practical purposes, he was never declared selected by the Selection Board in want of requisite experience. The order dated 27.5.1998 passed by the Division Bench in the stay application shows that the appellant was provisionally allowed to undergo promotion cadre course for the post of Inspector with the condition that result thereof shall abide by the result of this special appeal. The order dated 27.5.1998 passed by the Division Bench in the stay application shows that the appellant was provisionally allowed to undergo promotion cadre course for the post of Inspector with the condition that result thereof shall abide by the result of this special appeal. It further appears that an application was moved on 22.7.1998 on behalf of the respondents for vacating the ad interim stay order dated 27.5.1998 and in Para-3 of this application, it was stated that the promotion cadre course which commenced on 12.5.1998 had already been completed on 8.7.1998 and now in pursuance of the stay order passed by the Court on 27.5.1998, if the petitioner/appellant is allowed to undergo provisionally in the promotion cadre course, it would not be possible because he can be sent only in the next batch. This application for vacating the ad interim stay order dated 27.5.1998 came up for consideration before the Division Bench on 13.8.1998 and after hearing the parties, the court modified the order of stay and directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to undergo promotion cadre course and also appear in the examination, if any, but his result shall not be declared until the final disposal of the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has produced the order dated 2.4.1999 before us during the course of arguments and it is not in dispute that the present appellant had undergone the promotion cadre course in Batch No. 42 during the period 16.12.1998 to 9.2.1999 and the result of the final examination was declared on 2.4.1999 after Asstt. Director General of Police (Training)s letter No. 1401 dated 11.3.1999. In this letter dated 2.4.1999, the appellants name appears at S.No. 1 and in Column No.4, it is mentioned that the appellants result was withheld. (10). The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has passed the order on the basis of the definition of ``Service or Experience as defined under Rule 2 (r) of the Rules of 1989 and has held that as per this definition of ``Service or Experience the petitioner did not possess the requisite experience to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector and therefore, he was not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector. Rule 2(r) of the Rules of 1989 is reproduced as under:- 2.(r) ``Service or ``Experience wherever prescribed in these rules as a condition for promotion from one service to another or within the service from one category to another or to senior posts, in the case of a person holding a lower post eligible for promotion to higher post shall include the period for which the person has continuously worked on such lower post after regular selection in accordance with rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India; and Note:- Absence during service e.g. training, leave and deputation etc. which are treated as ``duty under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 shall also be counted as service for computing experience or service required for promotion. (11). Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the cases of Mukrab Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), Umashanker Vyas vs. State & Others (2), Pilla Sitaram Patrudu & Others vs. Union of India & Others (3), and Keshav Deo & Another vs. State of U.P. & Others (4), thereof and the decision in case of Director Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (5), which has been referred in ( 1999 (1) SCC 280 . (12). Mr. B.L. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant has also made referred to Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989 and submitted that all the candidates included in the lists prepared by the various Boards under Sub-rule (3) including the candidates nominated under Rule 28 are required to undergo the promotion cadre course and has submitted that the qualified candidates including the candidates nominated under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989 are sent for promotion cadre course in batches; in his case he was sent and as and when he was sent for promotion cadre course, he passed the same. The respondents themselves have placed on record the document R/3 dated 25.11.1997 in which it has been clearly mentioned that the year of the selection of the appellant was 1991-92 and therefore, there is no question of contending that the appellant was not entitled or eligible to appear in the qualifying test which was being held in the year 1997 for the promotion to the post of Inspector from the post of Sub-Inspector and in fact he had appeared in the written test, had passed the same, had also appeared in the parade and P.T. etc. and these averments have not been specifically denied by the respondents, nay, under the interim orders passed by the Court he had also undergone the promotion cadre course for the post of Inspector for which the result was declared on 7.12.1997 but in his case, his result was withheld because of the Courts order that the result thereof shall abide by the final result of this appeal. (13). Mr. (13). Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the passing of the promotion cadre course by itself is the condition precedent and the pre-requisite and no person can be appointed by promotion as Sub-Inspector unless he passes the promotion cadre course for that post; of course, it is correct that the ad hoc promotions are granted on the post when a person qualifies and even the candidates who are yet to pass the promotion cadre course are promoted on ad hoc basis but his submission is that the requirement or eligibility for the next higher post is the five years experience and according to the definition of ``Service or Experience under Rule 2(r) of the Rules of 1989, the experience counts only after the date of substantive appointment and no experience gained by any candidates prior to the substantive appointment can be credited in his favour so as to confer the eligibility for the next higher post, it was only on that basis that the department passed the order that the appellant was allowed to appear in the test by oversight and mistake and in fact, he had no legal right to appear in such test and for that reason his appearance in the test for the post of Inspector is of no consequence and even if he has appeared in the promotion cadre course, the same is of no consequence because the appellant had no basic right to appear in that test. He has also made reference to Rule 26(iv) of the Rules of 1989 as aforesaid and has contended that even if he is taken to have been appointed as Sub-Inspector in July, 1992, he cannot claim the experience of five years from that date also as on 1.4.1997 because the five years period is required to be completed on 1.04.of the year in which the qualifying examination is held. Since the qualifying examination was being held in the year 1997, he did not complete the five years service as Sub-Inspector from July, 1992 up till 1.4.1997, he was short of requisite experience. Since the qualifying examination was being held in the year 1997, he did not complete the five years service as Sub-Inspector from July, 1992 up till 1.4.1997, he was short of requisite experience. He has also submitted that the order of July, 1992 was only an order for nomination for promotion cadre course and it could not have conferred any right on the petitioner so as to claim appointment on that date for the purposes of considering the service on the post of Sub-Inspector so as to make him eligible for promotion for the post of Inspector. So far as the circular of 1996 is concerned i.e. Annexure-8, Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned counsel has submitted that this circular has been now withdrawn by the Government vide order dated 7.7.2001. (14). We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the light of pleadings of the parties and the decisions cited at the Bar and have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and have also gone through the scheme of the rules. The moot question which is required to be considered by us in this appeal is limited to the extent as to whether the appellant herein was eligible to appear in the qualifying test for purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector or not? (15). The appellant being a graduate was required to have only five years experience and he had completed five year experience as under:- (i) On 1.4.1996 as a promotee Sub-Inspector against the year 1991-92. (ii) On 20.7.1997 from the date of appointment order dated 20.7.1992 as Inspector; and (iii) On 5.2.1998, even from the actual date of passing the promotion cadre course. (16). In the light of the explanation under Rule 36 and even on the basis of the definition of the word ``Service or Experience under Rule 2(r) of the Rules of 1989, it has to be taken that he had completed five years of experience when he appeared in the test for promotion to the post of Inspector in November, 1997. In the light of the explanation under Rule 36 and even on the basis of the definition of the word ``Service or Experience under Rule 2(r) of the Rules of 1989, it has to be taken that he had completed five years of experience when he appeared in the test for promotion to the post of Inspector in November, 1997. After the petitioners nomination under Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989, the appointment was given to him on the post of Sub- Inspector by promotion and he had passed the promotion cadre course and in terms of the order passed in July, 1992 itself, it is clear that his promotion was against the quota of the year 1991-92 and it was also mentioned in the promotion order that this promotion shall be deemed to be regular promotion on passing the promotion cadre course. Whereas he had passed the promotion cadre course and the promotion accorded to him in July, 1992 was against the year 1991-92, it has to be deemed to be a substantive appointment against the vacancies of the year 1991-92, it has to be deemed to be a substantive appointment against the vacancies of the year 1991-92 and he has to be treated to be holding the post of Sub-Inspector right from 1.4.1991. (17). Rule 36, of the Rules of 1989, reads as under:- 36. Seniority:- The seniority in the service shall be determined in each category of the service by the year of substantive appointment. Explanation :- Year of substantive appointment in case of those who are promoted after completion of promotion cadre course shall mean the year in which the promotion cadre course normally ought to have been completed: Provided that :- (1) ``....... to (7) ``......... (18). It is the title law that no particular provision of any scheme of the Rules can be considered in isolation but entire scheme of the Rules is required to be considered. So far as the definition of the word ``service or experience is concerned, at the very outset of the definition, it has been stated that in these Rules `unless the context otherwise requires; therefore, the context in which any rule is to be interpreted and applied is important and such context cannot be lost sight of. So far as the definition of the word ``service or experience is concerned, at the very outset of the definition, it has been stated that in these Rules `unless the context otherwise requires; therefore, the context in which any rule is to be interpreted and applied is important and such context cannot be lost sight of. Here is a case in which it is admitted position that the appellant was appointed against the quota of 1991-92 and his year of selection is 1991-92. If his year of promotion for the post of Sub- Inspector is 1991-92, as per Annexure-2, the eligibility will have to be seen from the Ist April of the year 1991. If that is the date from which the appellants service is to be counted as Sub-Inspector, he completed five years of service on 1.4.1996 and therefore in the year 1997, that is the year in which the Promotion Cadre Course was being held for promotion to the post of Inspector, it cannot be said that he did not complete the five years of period as on 1.4.1997. Recent withdrawal of circular of 1996, Annexure-8 vide order dated 7.7.2001 has no impact on the selections held in 1997 as the withdrawal in 2001 is not retrospective. (19). So far as the question of substantive appointment is concerned, it is very clear from the reading of the order, Annexure-2 dated 20.7.1992, though in the order, it was mentioned that he was appointed on ad-hoc basis, it was clearly mentioned in the beginning of the order itself that he was being appointed against the quota of 1991-92 and it was also mentioned in the body of the order itself that he will be deemed to be regularly promoted on passing of the promotion cadre course, therefore, passing of the promotion cadre course was the contingent situation, contemplated under the order itself so as to treat this appointment as a substantive appointment. The fact is that the appellant has passed the promotion cadre course at the first available opportunity and the moment he passes the promotion cadre course, this appointment as was given to him by order, Annexure-2, has to be deemed to be substantive. The fact is that the appellant has passed the promotion cadre course at the first available opportunity and the moment he passes the promotion cadre course, this appointment as was given to him by order, Annexure-2, has to be deemed to be substantive. Besides the reasons that it was an appointment against the quota of 1991-92 and therefore, there cannot be any doubt that he held a substantive appointment and the benefit thereof could not be denied to him merely because the order with regards to him for the quota of 1991-92 had been passed at a later point of time. In such cases, the point of time at which the order is passed is of little significance. Once a particular year is allotted and when it is admitted that the year of selection was 1991-92, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the appellant could not claim the benefit of year 1991-92. (20). In our opinion, passing of the promotion cadre course may be condition precedent for treating the appointment as substantive but it is no condition precedent for the purpose of appointment by promotion as such and it is also admitted position that the promotions are accorded even before passing the promotion cadre course in large number of cases. Therefore, it cannot be said that the passing of the promotion cadre course is a condition precedent or pre-requisite for the purpose of promoting an officer to the post for which he is qualified. It is a condition precedent for treating the appointment as substantive but the moment he passes the promotion cadre course, the substantive appointment relates back to the point of time when he was so promoted and he has to be treated as substantive from the date of appointment with the passing of the promotion cadre course. (21). In the case at hand, with the nomination under Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989, the appellant became qualified for being appointed as a Sub-Inspector and it has been categorically provided under Explanation of Rule 36 of the Rules of 1989 that year of substantive appointment in case of those who are promoted after completion of promotion cadre course shall mean the year in which the promotion cadre course normally ought to have been completed. This also shows that the appointment by promotion can be made even before the completion of the promotion cadre course and even in cases where the appointment is made after completion of promotion cadre course, the year of substantive appointment has to be treated the year in which promotion cadre course, the year of substantive appointment has to be treated the year in which promotion cadre course normally ought to have been completed. (22). In the present case, had the orders been passed at appropriate time in the year 1991-92 itself i.e. the year of selection of the appellant, he could have passed the promotion cadre course in that very year and there would have been no controversy. Therefore, we find that it will be wrong to deny the benefits of the year 1991-92 to the appellant merely because the order in his case was passed at a later point of time. Once a person passes the tests and gets through the requirement of the procedure of selection as provided under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989 or a person is nominated under Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989, both have to be treated at par in the light of Rule 27(5) of the Rules of 1989. Even otherwise, we find that under Rule 35 of the Rules of 1989 for the purpose of urgent temporary appointment- vacancy in the service, which cannot be filled in immediately either by direct recruitment or by promotion under the rules, may be filled in by the Appointing Authority as per the guidelines laid down by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police by appointing in an officiating capacity thereto an officer eligible for appointment to the post of promotion or by appointing temporarily thereto a person eligible for direct recruitment to the service under the provisions of these rules subject to the condition that the appointment cannot be continued beyond a period of one year without referring the case to the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police or the Commission as the case may be, for concurrence and shall be terminated immediately on their refusal to concur. (23). (23). In the instant case, the appointment was given to the petitioner on 20.4.1992 and admittedly, he had passed the promotion cadre course within a period of one year i.e. 25.2.1993, thus the appointment as was given to the petitioner was according to the rules and as has been laid down in case of Keshav Deo (Supra), he has to be considered as promoted in the year 1991-92 and the benefit of the whole period has to be given to the appellant. Thus, testing the contention of the petitioner on the basis of the entire scheme of the Rules read with the orders which are available on the record and particularly the order dated 20.7.1992 and Annexure-R/3 dated 25.11.1997, it is clear that the petitioners appointment relates back to the quota of 1991-92 which is the year of his selection. We have therefore, no hesitation in holding that the appellant has passed the qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Inspector and the plea which has been taken by the respondents that he was invited to appear in the written test etc. for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector by mistake and oversight is not sustainable. The legal position is rather reverse, he was rightly called for written test and the petitioners case is that he had appeared not only in the written test as a part in qualifying examination but he had also appeared in the parade and interview and subsequently under the order of this court he had also undergone promotion cadre course and appeared in that examination for the post of Inspector and him name has been included in the order dated 2.4.1999 at S.No. 1 amongst the candidates who were declared successful at this promotion cadre course with the remarks that his result is withheld. The result of the appellant was withheld because of the interim order of this court. In any view of the matter, we do not find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge stands the scrutiny of the scheme of the Rules and the view which has been taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be correct. (24). In view of the above discussion, this appeal succeeds and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 6.4.1998 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. (24). In view of the above discussion, this appeal succeeds and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 6.4.1998 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the appellant-petitioner to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector and the result of the written test, parade, interview and promotion cadre course in which he had appeared may be declared and in case of the appellant is found to have been successful in the qualifying examination and is also found to have passed the promotion cadre course in which he had appeared under the order of this court, the appropriate orders shall be passed in his favour after considering his candidature for the post of Inspector and he shall be given all the consequential benefits from the due dates as if his result for the promotion cadre course had been declared on 2.4.1999, alongwith other candidates. The appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to the costs.