Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this writ petition a challenge is given by the petitioner to the Judgment dated 10.02.1999 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur in Appeal No 163/1997 (Bhanwar Singh vs. State & Ors.). By the Judgment impugned learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the seniority list issued on 08.07.1996 pertaining to the Cadre of Platoon Commanders in Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services. 2. The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner entered in the services of the Government of Rajasthan being appointed as a Constable in Rajasthan Police on 28.02.1970. The appointment to the petitioner was given in Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. Promotion was given to the petitioner as Head Constable on 111.1978 and he also qualified promotion cadre course on 210.1978. The Petitioner was confirmed on the post of Head Constable w.e.f. 210.1979. The seniority list of Head Constables of Rajasthan Armed Constabulary of the range concerned was published on 23.06.1984 wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.662 whereas the respondents No. 4 to 8 were placed at Sl. Nos. 694, 695, 696, 716 and 717 respectively. The petitioner and the respondents No. 4 to 8 were placed at the disposal of the department of Home Guards on deputation under order dated 20.09.1983. The petitioner as well as the respondents No. 4 to 8 were promoted as Platoon Commanders in the Department of Home Guards by order dated 011.1983. Their services were absorbed in the Department of Civil Defence and Home Guards, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. A seniority list of Platoon Commanders was issued wherein the name of the petitioner was kept at Sl. No.129 whereas the respondents No. 4 to 8 were placed above the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same submitted a representation to the competent authority of the respondent department but of no consequence. The grievance of the petitioner was redressed by the respondents while issuing a final seniority list dated 30.05.1991 and the petitioner was placed above the respondents No. 4 to 8 in the seniority list concerned. An another seniority list was issued on 14.07.1995 wherein also the petitioner was shown senior to the respondents No. 4 to 8. This seniority position dated 14.07.1995 was confirmed by the final seniority list dated 06.02.1996. 4. An another seniority list was issued on 14.07.1995 wherein also the petitioner was shown senior to the respondents No. 4 to 8. This seniority position dated 14.07.1995 was confirmed by the final seniority list dated 06.02.1996. 4. After issuance of the final seniority list dated 06.02.1996 yet another provisional seniority list was issued on 30.04.1996 wherein the petitioner was shown junior to the respondents No. 4 to 8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the provisional seniority list dated 30.04.1996 submitted a representation to the authority competent but of no consequence. The respondents after considering the representation submitted by the persons aggrieved declared a final seniority list on 08.07.1996 wherein the seniority position of the petitioner and of the respondents No. 4 to 8 was maintained. On the basis of aforesaid seniority list the respondents No. 4 to 8 were called for to appear in promotion test, a pre condition for promotion to the post of Company Commander. Since, the petitioner was not called to face the promotion test he preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and the same was registered as Appeal No. 163/1997. The petitioner before the Tribunal assailed the validity of the final seniority list dated 08.07.1996 and also the decision of the official Respondents with regard to calling the respondents No. 4 to 8 for appearing in test, a pre condition for the promotion to the post of Company Commander ignoring his claim. 5. The official respondent filed a reply to the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The Tribunal by the Judgment impugned while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner affirmed the seniority list dated 08.07.1996 on the count that the respondents No. 4 o 8 were promoted prior to the petitioner i.e., somewhere in the year 1977 whereas the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on 111.1978. 6. By the instant writ petition a challenge is given to the Judgment dated 10.02.1999 referred above passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. By the instant writ petition a challenge is given to the Judgment dated 10.02.1999 referred above passed by the learned Tribunal. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Judgment passed by the Tribunal suffers from an error apparent on the face of record to the effect that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 111.1978 on regular basis after following the procedure prescribed under Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 whereas the promotions of the respondents No. 4 to 8 were given on ad hoc basis. It is asserted by the Counsel for the petitioner that promotion was given to him as Head Constable w.e.f. 111.1978 after qualifying the Promotion Cadre Course on 210.1978. According to Counsel for the petitioner the respondents No. 4 and 5 qualified promotion cadre course on 011.1979 and the respondents No. 6 and 7 qualified the promotion cadre course on 11.03.1981 In view of it, it is asserted by Counsel for the petitioner the respondents No. 4 to 8 cannot be treated as senior to him in the cadre of Head Constable. 7. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The respondents have reiterated in their reply that the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable by an order dated 210.1978 and on that post the petitioner joined duties on 111.1978 whereas the respondents No. 4 to 8 were promoted as Head Constable in the year 1977. In reply the specific date of promotion of the respondents No. 4 to 8 is not given. However, it is admitted that for substantive promotion on the post of Head Constable a person is required to pass promotion cadre course (PCC). The official respondents also admitted that the private respondents passed the PCC for the post of Head Constable subsequent to the petitioner. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. However, it is admitted that for substantive promotion on the post of Head Constable a person is required to pass promotion cadre course (PCC). The official respondents also admitted that the private respondents passed the PCC for the post of Head Constable subsequent to the petitioner. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. The learned Tribunal while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner relied upon the fact that the respondents No. 4 to 8 were promoted as Head Constables in the year 1977 whereas the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable w.e.f. 111.1978, however, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the promotion given to respondents No. 4 to 8 were not in substantive capacity and they qualified promotion cadre course quite later than the petitioner. The respondents No. 4 and 5 qualified the promotion cadre course on 011.1979 and the respondents No. 6 and 7 qualified the promotion cadre course on 11.03.1981. The petitioner on the other hand qualified the promotion cadre course on 210.1978 as the promotion was given to the petitioner on substantive basis after qualifying the promotion cadre course. In view of it the date of promotion as Head Constable for the respondents must be after qualifying their promotion cadre course. The respondents No. 4 to 8 could not be placed at higher pedestal than the petitioner in the seniority list on the count of their ad hoc promotion. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 111.1978 as he qualified prior to the respondents No. 4 to 8. In view of it the petitioner is entitled to be placed at higher pedestal in the seniority list pertaining to Platoon Commanders. The petitioner is hereby declared senior to the respondents No. 4 to 8 in the cadre of Platoon Commanders being promoted as Head Constable prior to the respondents No. 4 to 8. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Judgment dated 10.02.1999 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal is hereby quashed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner is allowed. The seniority list impugned is quashed to the extent it places the petitioner below the respondents No. 4 to 8. The official respondents are directed to determine the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents No. 4 to 8 on basis of their promotion to the post of Head Constable on substantive basis. The seniority list impugned is quashed to the extent it places the petitioner below the respondents No. 4 to 8. The official respondents are directed to determine the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents No. 4 to 8 on basis of their promotion to the post of Head Constable on substantive basis. The seniority list shall be modified in the terms above by the official respondents within a period of three months from today. It is pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioner that by the force of interim order passed by the Tribunal the petitioner appeared in the promotion test, a pre condition for the purpose of promotion to the post of Company Commander. The respondents, therefore, are directed now to declare the result of the petitioner pertaining to the test referred above and in the event he is found selected promotion be accorded to him. 10. No order as to cost.