Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1530 (RAJ)

Jas Raj v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-23

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-At the outset Counsel for the petitioners has stated that promotion claimed has already been given to petitioner No.1 Jas Raj, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous qua the petitioner No.1, same is dismissed to that extent. 2. By this petition for writ a challenge is given by the petitioners to the standing order No. 5/75 issued by the Director General of Police, Government of Rajasthan prescribing general instructions for Part-II examination as prescribed under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Police Subordinate Service) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1974”). 3. The main contention in the petition is that under the standing order 40 marks are provided to adjudge the suitability for promotion by way of holding interview, which is arbitrary. However, at the time of hearing the Counsel for the petitioners has not pressed in service any argument to challenge prescription of 40 marks referred above. Counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the standing order provides for 40 marks out of the maximum marks of 250 marks, that is only 16% of it and not 40% of maximum marks as stated in petition. 4. By an order dated 04.03.1999 a direction was given by this Court to the respondents to produce the case file of the persons particularly petitioner Jas Raj who was not found eligible for promotion alongwith the petitioners under an order dated 04.01.1992 but was subsequently promoted by order dated 25.01.1997. By order dated 04.03.1999 this Court also directed the respondents to file an additional affidavit showing the material on basis of which the decision taken under the order dated 04.01.1992 was changed. 5. In compliance of the order passed by this Court an additional affidavit sworn in by Shri Mahendra Choudhary, Additional Superintendent of Police, CID, CB has been filed stating therein that in pursuance of an another writ petition bearing No. 4474/91 all the petitioners except petitioner No. 2 Vijay Ram submitted representation to the competent authorities of the respondent department, accordingly the entire record of the selection proceedings was re-examined. While re-examining the record it was found that petitioner No.1 Jas Raj was entitled for 14 marks under the head of annual remarks in service rolls but only one mark was given to him. While re-examining the record it was found that petitioner No.1 Jas Raj was entitled for 14 marks under the head of annual remarks in service rolls but only one mark was given to him. This error was rectified, consequentially he was found eligible to be promoted and an order dated 25.01.1997 was passed promoting petitioner No.1 Jas Raj as Head Constable. 6. The respondents also produced original record of the entire selection proceedings pertaining to all the petitioners except petitioner No.2 Shri Vijay Ram. This error was rectified, consequentially he was found eligible to be promoted and an order dated 25.01.1997 was passed promoting petitioner No.1 Jas Raj as Head Constable. 6. The respondents also produced original record of the entire selection proceedings pertaining to all the petitioners except petitioner No.2 Shri Vijay Ram. According to the record produced by the respondents petitioners Moinuddin, Mohanlal and Arvind Dave secured marks in the examination concerned as under: Marks obtained in Constable to Head Constable Promotion Test-1984 (As per chart prepared in December-1996) Maximum Minimum Marks Marks Marks Obtained Petitioner Moinuddin : Written Test 100 40%=40 52½ Parade & Outdoor 75 36% 29 Total of Part -I 175 45%= 78.75 81½ Education 5 -- Annual remarks in Service rolls 15 -5 Rewards and punishment 10 -10 Training 5 -2 (Interview): Personality 5 -2½ Turnout 5 -2 Address & Behaviour 5 -2½ Tact 5 -2½ Aptitude 5 -2 Judgment 5 -2 Leadership 5 -2 General Awareness 5 -1 Total of Interview 40 -16½ Total of Part -II 75 45%=33.5 33½ Grand Total (Part -I + Part-II) 250 50%=125 115 Result Fail Petitioner Mohan Lal: Written Test 100 40%=40 62 Parade & Outdoor 75 36% 31 Total of Part -I 175 45%=78.75 93 Education 5 -3 Annual remarks in Service rolls 15 -4 Rewards and punishment 10 -10 Training 5 - (Interview): Personality 5 ½ Turnout 5 -2 Address & Behaviour 5 -½ Tact 5 -½ Aptitude 5 -½ Judgment 5 -½ Leadership 5 -½ General Awareness 5 -1 Total of Interview 40 Total of Part- II 75 Grand Total (Part-I + Part-II) Result Petitioner Arvind Dave: Written Test 100 Parade & Outdoor 75 Total of Part -I 175 Education 5 Annual remarks in Service rolls Rewards and punishment 10 Training 5 (Interview): Personality 5 Turnout 5 Address & Behaviour 5 Tact 5 Aptitude 5 Judgment 5 Leadership 5 General Awareness 5 Total of Interview 40 Total of Part- II 75 Grand Total (Part-I + Part-II) Result -6 45%=33.5 23 250 50%=125 116 Fail 40%=40 64 36% 29 ½ 45%=78.75 93 ½ -1 15 -5 -10 - -2 ½ -3 -1 ½ -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -13 45%=33.5 29 250 50%=125 122 ½ Fail 7. All the three petitioners failed to secure qualifying marks and therefore, they were not selected for promotion 8. All the three petitioners failed to secure qualifying marks and therefore, they were not selected for promotion 8. In view of the result sheet produced by the respondents I do not find any error in the decision of the respondents for not promoting the petitioners as Head Constables. The record of petitioner Shri Vijay Ram is not shown to the Court being not available today. The respondents are directed to examine the record of Shri Vijay Ram also, as examined in case of other petitioners, and then to convey result of Shri Vijay Ram. This entire exercise is required to be done within a period of two months from today. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .