Judgment N.P. Gupta, J.-These two writ petitions are by the same petitioner, and are closely inter-related, and, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. Writ Petition No. 3081 has been filed by the petitioner against the State respondent, being Respondents No. 1 and 2, and private respondents, being Respondents No.3 to 6, praying for quashing Annexure-11 dated 20.04.1991, so also, that if during pendency of the petition any promotions are made in the junior scale of Rajasthan Police Service, on the basis of Annexure-11, then the same may also be declared illegal, and be quashed. It has also been prayed, that the State respondent be directed to promote the petitioner in the junior scale, on and from the date, Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have been promoted, with all consequential benefits, including assignment of seniority. 2. The averments of the petitioner are, that in response to advertisement, the petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector, in the Civil Police, Intelligence Branch, and prosecution, and was selected for being sent for training, vide communication dated 28.07.1969. He successfully completed the training, and was placed at S. No. 3 in merit, vide Annexure-1. On such successful completion of training, the petitioner was posted under Deputy Inspector General, Range Jodhpur. It is thereafter alleged, that in October, 1979, qualifying examinations were held for promotion to the post of Inspector in civil police, wherein the petitioner appeared, and qualified. Vide Annexure-2 dated 11.01.1980, the petitioner was declared successful in the said test. Then, vide order dated 14.03.1980 (Annexure-3), the petitioner was promoted as Inspector. It is alleged, that in this order Annexure-3, though it is mentioned that promotion was on ad-hoc basis, but promotion was made after undergoing regular selection process, and was of substantive nature. The petitioner alleges to have joined duties as Inspector on 07.04.1980, and vide order dated 14.04.1985 (Annexure-4), the petitioner was confirmed as such. 3. Since, the dispute is regarding seniority between the petitioner, and the private respondents, the petitioner has detailed facts about private respondents, alleging, that they also applied for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector, alongwith the petitioner, and were also selected for the same, and they also completed the training successfully, alongwith the petitioner. However, in the result of training, they were placed lower in merit then the petitioner. However, in the result of training, they were placed lower in merit then the petitioner. It is alleged, that they also appeared in the qualifying test for the post of Inspector, and were declared successful vide order dated 11.01.1980. Thereupon the Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were promoted to the post of Inspectors vide order dated 14.04.1981 (Annexure-5), on temporary basis, and Respondent No. 3 was promoted vide order dated 110.1981 (Annexure-6). However, they were confirmed on this post, vide order dated 14.04.1985. 4. According to the petitioner, seniority list for the post of Sub-Inspectors was issued, wherein private respondents were shown junior Private respondents did not challenge the promotion of the petitioner as Inspector, which was effected prior to their promotion. Then in the order of confirmation also, the petitioner was placed above them, to which also, they did not object. With this, it is alleged, that a tentative seniority list of the Inspectors was issued in the year 1985, wherein the petitioner was shown senior to the private respondents. Then another tentative seniority list was issued on 20.06.1986 (Annexure-7), wherein again, the petitioner was shown senior. Then final seniority list was issued on 210.1986 (Annexure-8), maintaining the petitioners seniority. However, on 28.05.1988 again, tentative seniority list was issued, being Annexure-9. A look at Annexure-9 shows, that therein also, the petitioner has been shown senior, being at No. 196 while, the private respondents have been shown at Serial Nos. 210, 214, 215 and 216. However, on 20.04.1991, a seniority list was issued, purporting to be as on 01.04.1986, being Annexure-11, wherein the private respondents were shown senior to the petitioner. A look at Annexure-9 shows, that therein also, the petitioner has been shown senior, being at No. 196 while, the private respondents have been shown at Serial Nos. 210, 214, 215 and 216. However, on 20.04.1991, a seniority list was issued, purporting to be as on 01.04.1986, being Annexure-11, wherein the private respondents were shown senior to the petitioner. This is how the seniority of the petitioner is alleged to have been upset vis-a-vis the private respondents, and is a subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, on various grounds mentioned in the writ petition, substantially being, that this placement of seniority was done without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, while it has adverse civil and evil consequences, and that admittedly when the petitioner has been promoted prior to the private respondents, and promotion of the petitioner, or his confirmation, wherein petitioner has been shown senior to the private respondents, has not been challenged by the private respondents, now at this belated hour, the seniority cannot be upset, vide Annexure-11, more so, when against Annexure-9, no representation of whatever nature was made by the private respondents. 5. In this writ, the Respondent No. 3 has entered appearance through Shri Bipin. However, no reply has been filed on his behalf . Learned Counsel for the private respondents, however, tried to seek support from the application, filed by him in the stay petition, on 111.1991, seeking vacation of stay, and it was submitted, that in that application all facts have been pleaded, and some 7 documents have also been filed, which clearly show, that the petitioner has no case to invoke Article 226 jurisdiction. 6. The State has of course filed a reply on 110.1992 pleading inter alia, firstly, that in view of the petitioner having alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, writ cannot be maintained. Secondly, that the petitioner has not disclosed factual position, inasmuch as, private respondents had been placed in the main list of the selection, while the petitioners name found place in the reserve list, though they entered services consequent upon the same selection, it is then contended, that the private respondents were senior to the petitioner, and, therefore, they were confirmed in the sub-ordinate services earlier to the petitioner. It is then contended, that as a result of some inadvertence, the petitioner was shown senior to the private respondents in the list dated 22.07.1980, but the same was rectified after receiving representations, and that the issue regarding placement of seniority, pertaining to Sub-Inspector, was never finalised by the Government, and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is then contended, that thus, the petitioner is junior to the private respondents from the very beginning, and that the seniority list Annexure-11, has rightly been issued. Then, para wise reply has also been given, therein it is contended, that placement in the merit list, issued by the Police Training School has no relevance, as the seniority is to be determined on the basis of Rules 24 and 33 of the Rajasthan Police Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1974. Then it is contended, that promotion given to the petitioner was purely on ad-hoc basis, which does not create any right in favour of the petitioner. The stand taken about the private respondent finding place in the main list and the petitioners name appearing in the reserve list was reiterated, and showing the petitioner to be senior was pleaded to be an act of inadvertence. It was maintained that seniority list Annexure-11 has rightly been issued after considering various representations, and keeping in view the provisions of Rajasthan Police Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, and that the Respondent No. 2 disposed of number of representations, including those of Ratan Singh and Amar Singh, vide order dated 20.04.1991 (Annexure-11), which is self speaking, and a well reasoned order. Then it was contended, that it is wrong to say that seniority of Sub-Inspector is not relevant for determining the seniority for the post of Inspectors, and that the petitioner was shown senior to the private respondents in the cadre of Sub-Inspector, as a result of inadvertence and erroneously, and that the seniority list in the cadre of Sub-Inspector was never finalised as such, it was open to the State respondent to rectify and correct it. Replying the grounds, it was contended, that the State respondents had only disposed of various representations, invited with regard to provisional seniority list, and there is no necessity of giving any opportunity of hearing, while finalising the final seniority list, as such, there arises no question of breach of principles of natural justice. Replying the grounds, it was contended, that the State respondents had only disposed of various representations, invited with regard to provisional seniority list, and there is no necessity of giving any opportunity of hearing, while finalising the final seniority list, as such, there arises no question of breach of principles of natural justice. It was also contended, that Respondent No. 2 has simply rectified error, made in the tentative seniority list, by making correct placement of the incumbent in the list. Then it was pleaded, that the seniority was given to the petitioner in the cadre of Inspector, only because he was shown senior in the tentative seniority list of Sub-inspector, which, after careful scrutiny, was found to be incorrect. It was maintained, that the private respondents did make requests to rectify the error in the provisional seniority list, and keeping in view said representations, all were disposed of . It was maintained that it is always open to State to correct this error. 7. Arguing the writ petition, both the sides substantially maintained the stands taken in the writ petition and reply. 8. Writ Petition No. 795 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer directing the respondents to promote the petitioner, to junior scale of Rajasthan Police Service w.e.f. 211.1992, with all consequential benefits. Then a prayer has been made for quashing Annexures-5 and 8 dated 211.1986 and 31.08.1990. The alternate prayer has been made, to direct the respondents to dispose of the appeals of the petitioner. In this writ, the allegations are, that the DPC met for making promotion to the post of Junior Scale of Rajasthan Police Service, from amongst the Inspectors working in the Rajasthan Police Service for the year 1992-1993, and on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC, two orders have been issued on 211.1992. By one order, Annexure-2, the persons have been promoted on regular basis, while by Annexure-3, 33 persons have been promoted on temporary basis, subject to review and revision in the next DPC. It is then alleged, that out of persons promoted temporarily, persons placed at Serial Nos. 18 and below it, are all junior to the petitioner, and regarding the persons at Serial No. 16 and 17, the petitioner has filed writ petition which are pending in the High Court, for claiming seniority over them. It is then alleged, that out of persons promoted temporarily, persons placed at Serial Nos. 18 and below it, are all junior to the petitioner, and regarding the persons at Serial No. 16 and 17, the petitioner has filed writ petition which are pending in the High Court, for claiming seniority over them. According to the petitioner, it was revealed, that promotion has not been given to him because of penalties imposed on him vide orders dated 211.1986 and 31.08.1990. It is alleged, that promotion could not have been withheld on the ground of penalty, as the promotions have been made on temporary basis, and are required to be made strictly, on the basis of seniority, or even if they are made on the basis of seniority cum merit, then the service record of the petitioner has no adverse entry during the last seven years, therefore, promotion could not be withheld. Then it is alleged, that on the basis of language of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, the competent authority did not think it appropriate to impose any punishment of withholding the promotion, therefore, the promotion could not be withheld, only on the ground, that penalties have been imposed on the petitioner in the past. Alternatively, the DPC was required to consider the nature of misconduct alleged, and could withhold promotion, only if it is found, that the nature of misconduct did render the candidate unfit for promotion. The petitioner has alleged to have filed appeals against those orders, which are said to be pending. Then it is also alleged, that since appeals have been filed the penalties have not become final. With these facts it is contended in the grounds, that since no adverse entry has been communicated to the petitioner during the last seven years, even if the promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit, he could not be denied promotion. Then regarding penalty, it was contended that since it has not become final, promotion could not be withheld. Then it is contended that though Rule 14 provides, withholding of promotion, as one of the penalties, but then that penalty has not been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, promotion could not be withheld. Then in Ground-5 and 6 the petitioner has chosen to challenge the penalty order, on their merits as well. 9. Then it is contended that though Rule 14 provides, withholding of promotion, as one of the penalties, but then that penalty has not been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, promotion could not be withheld. Then in Ground-5 and 6 the petitioner has chosen to challenge the penalty order, on their merits as well. 9. In this writ reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, contending inter-alia, that in Writ Petition No. 3081 the petitioner has challenged the seniority list, and until and unless the petitioners position in the seniority is not decided, it is very difficult to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. It was maintained that the contention about the promotion having been withheld on account of punishment, and departmental inquiry, and service record, and ACRs, is without any basis and foundation. It was alleged, that all promotions have been made on the basis of seniority list dated 01.04.1992, and the petitioner could not be promoted on account of the fact, that the seniority list is under challenge. Regarding pendency of appeal against punishment order, it was pleaded that the competent authority is considering the appeal, and will be decided as early as possible. Thus, in substance, in Writ No. 795, the case of the respondents is, that promotion of the petitioner has not been withheld, either on account of the penalties, or on account of the adverse ACRs, rather the petitioners candidature could not be considered, in view of the fact, that question of seniority is already sub judice, and unless it is finalised the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion. 10. In that view of the matter, the second writ petition practically looses its force, as both the things depend on the out come of the first writ petition, bearing No. 3081/1991. Since, the petitioner has raised a ground, and has made a prayer, for quashing the penalty order Annexures-5 and 8, I am required to decide that prayer; and it would suffice to observe, that admittedly the petitioner has filed appeals against penalty order Annexures-5 and 8. As the pleadings stand, those appeals were pending. As on the date, the parties are not in a position to inform, as to what is the out come of the appeals. As the pleadings stand, those appeals were pending. As on the date, the parties are not in a position to inform, as to what is the out come of the appeals. Obviously, therefore, when the petitioner had already filed appeals before the competent authority, it would not be in the fitness of things for me, to examine the merits or sustainability of those penalty orders, as by now, those appeals may have been decided, one way or the other, and/or the appellate order may have been assailed, and its validity may have been adjudicated one way or the other, and that adjudication may have acquired finality. Therefore, I do not stand advised to even go into the question of sustainability of the penalty orders Annexure-5 and 8, and go into the prayer made in the writ petition, more particularly, when according to the respondents, the promotion was not withheld on account of the penalty orders. 11. Now taking up the Writ Petition No. 3081; it is not in dispute, that the parties (petitioner and private respondents), were initially appointed as Sub-Inspector, consequent upon some selection exercise, may be, that in that recruitment, the petitioner may have been senior or may not have been senior. As appears from the record, that the parties are at issue on this question, and rather it appears, that the controversy about the petitioners seniority has been triggered off vide Annexure-11, taking into account the seniority of the petitioner, as was considered by the State respondents, in the cadre of Sub-Inspector. I find from the order-sheet, that on 13.02.2006, when the matter was listed in the Court, this Court (learned Brother Honble Gandhi J.) felt, that in order to apprise the dispute with regard to seniority assigned to the petitioner, and later on withdrawn, record of selection, particularly merit list of selection to the of Sub-Inspector is required to be examined, as the petitioner was directly recruited as Sub-Inspector. With this, the learned Counsel for the State was directed to make available, the record on the next date. Three weeks time was granted, as prayed. By now more than six weeks has elapsed, but then, record has not been made available. Learned Counsel for the respondent made a request for adjournment, to comply with the order dated 13.02.2006. With this, the learned Counsel for the State was directed to make available, the record on the next date. Three weeks time was granted, as prayed. By now more than six weeks has elapsed, but then, record has not been made available. Learned Counsel for the respondent made a request for adjournment, to comply with the order dated 13.02.2006. However, considering fact that the matter is already very old, being writ of 1991, I tried to get abreast with the matter, and found, that the seniority, or merit in the initial recruitment as Sub-Inspector, is not of much relevance, and, therefore, instead of adjourning the case any more, I thought it appropriate to hear the case, and heard the case. 12. According to the parties, the services of the parties, in the matter of recruitment, promotion, seniority etc., is governed by the provisions of Rajasthan Police Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1974. 13. A perusal of the Rules of 1974 shows, that thereunder, according to the schedule, post of Inspector is to be filled 100% by promotion, out of persons mentioned in Column 5, and possessing the qualification mentioned in Column 6. Then Part-V lays down the procedure for appointment by promotion. In this part, Rule 23 provides for eligibility. Rule 24 provides for procedure for selection. A look at Rule 24 shows, that after the vacancies are determined, the Board is to prepare correct and complete list, containing names not exceeding five times the number of vacancies, out of senior most eligible members of service, who have passed Part-I of qualifying examination, specified Rule 26, by obtaining the prescribed percentage of marks therein. Under Sub-rule 3, the Board is to be constituted, for promotion to the post of Inspector, the constitution of Board is provided in Clause (f) of Sub-rule 6.3. Then, according to Sub-rule 4, the candidates included in the list, prepared by the Board under Sub-rule 8 including the candidates nominated under Rule 2, are required to undergo promotion cadre course, and the candidates are to be sent for promotion cadre course in accordance with the seniority. Then, according to Sub-rule 4, the candidates included in the list, prepared by the Board under Sub-rule 8 including the candidates nominated under Rule 2, are required to undergo promotion cadre course, and the candidates are to be sent for promotion cadre course in accordance with the seniority. Then, according to Sub-rule 5 the names of the candidates, who have successfully completed the promotion cadre course, in the first attempt, are to be placed in approved list for promotion, in order of seniority, and the names of the failures are to be added below the aforesaid list; as and when they pass the promotion cadre post. Rule 26 provides for qualifying examination for promotion, which consists of two parts, and also makes provision for prescribing syllabus. Then, a look at Rule 33 shows, that it makes provision for seniority, and Sub-rule 4 thereof provides, that the seniority inter se of the persons, appointed to the post, in a particular section by promotion, shall follow the order, in which their names are placed in the list, prepared under Sub-rule 4 of Rule 24, and the seniority inter se of persons appointed by promotion in a particular class of posts, will be the same as in the next below grade, except in case of continued officiation on higher posts etc. Thus, a comprehension of the above scheme of rules, makes it clear, that the promotion is not merely on seniority cum merit, but is a promotion on merit, after passing the qualifying examination, with a particular percentage of marks, and it is, for the purpose of eligibility to appear in that examination, that seniority is relevant, in the manner, that senior most candidates, upto five times of the vacancies, are entitled to appear, and then minimum percentage are required to be obtained in the qualifying examination. Then according to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24, the Board, constituted under Sub-rule (3) thereof , is required to interview them, and prepare a list, containing names of suitable candidates, in order of seniority, who secure 45% marks in qualifying examination Part-II, and 50 per cent aggregate of the total marks of the qualifying examination Part-I and II, upto one and a half times the number of such posts, as determined to be filled under Rule 9. 14. 14. Thus, on the promotion, the seniority on the promoted post is to be determined, on the basis of the list, prepared under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 24, and this seniority, inter-se of the persons, appointed in a particular class of post of course is to remain the same as in the next below grade. 15. If the case in hand is examined on these parameters, a look at Annexure-2 shows, that thereby, as a result of qualifying examination for promotion, the board as constituted, recommended the persons mentioned therein, as suitable for promotion as Inspectors. According to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24, this list is to be in order of seniority, and in this list, the name of the petitioner finds place at S. No. 73, while the private respondents find place at S. Nos. 81, 78, 77 and 76. Thus, for the purpose of Rule 24, vide Annexure-2 the petitioner had been ranked senior. Then, a look at Annexure-3 shows, that thereby promotions were ordered, and therein the petitioners name finds place at S. No. 67, while in this list, private respondents do not figure at all. This order is dated 14.03.1980. According to the petitioner, in compliance thereof , he joined the promotional post on 04.04.1980, as alleged in Para 7 of the writ petition. As against this, a look at Annexure-5 shows, that thereby the private Respondents No. 4, 5, and 6 were promoted on 14.04.1981. Then, a look at Annexure-6 shows, that the Respondent No. 3 was promoted vide this order dated 110.1981. His name finds place at S. No. 2, in this list of promotees, to the post of Inspectors. Significantly, these private respondents have also been promoted, consequent upon having qualified in the qualifying examination held, result whereof was declared on 11.01.1980 (Anenxure-2). Thus, it is clear, that though the parties (petitioner and private respondents) had undergone the same promotional exercise, but then, in that exercise, the petitioner ranked senior, and the private respondents ranked junior, and significantly, the petitioner was promoted earlier, vide order Annexure-3 dated 14.03.1980, while the private respondents were promoted much later, vide orders dated 14.04.1981 and 110.1982, i.e., more than one year after the petitioners promotion. Then the confirmation order dated 14.05.1985, produced as Anneuxre-4, also does show, that therein again the petitioner has been shown senior, as his name finds place at S. No. 46, while the private respondents names find place at S. Nos. 49, 50, 51 and 53. Admittedly these orders Annexures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have never been assailed by private respondents, even till the day. 16. In that view of the matter, when the private respondents have been promoted, more than an year after the petitioners promotion and neither the promotion of the petitioner, nor the belated promotion of the private respondents, has been challenged, on the face of the language of Rule 24 read with Rule 33 of the Rules, the inescapable conclusion is, that the petitioner does rank senior to the private Respondents No. 3 to 6. It appears, that accordingly in the seniority list, (tentative as well as final), upto Annexure-9, the petitioner was shown senior to the private respondents. 17. Significantly a look at Annexure-11, (impugned seniority list) shows, that by this order dated 20.04.1991, while finalising the seniority list, the representations made by certain persons were considered, and the order shows, that representation of four persons were considered, being Amer Singh, Ratan Singh, Mehboob Khan and Om Prakash who all, are admittedly senior to the petitioner. There does not appear, that any grievance was made by the private respondents, against the provisional seniority list Annexure-9. Then may be technically, the pleadings taken in the application, filed by the private respondents, for vacating stay cannot be taken to be substantive pleadings, in the writ petition. However, instead of standing to ceremonies, I have looked into those pleadings also so, also the documents annexed therewith, and therein a representation has been produced as Annexure R-3, which purported to be representation against seniority list circulated vide communication dated 28.05.1988 Annexure-9, and a look at this representation shows that the whole thrust was, about his better placement position in the select list, on initial recruitment. Then, it is contended, that he was included in the select list of candidates passing competitive examination for promotion, and was placed in that list at S. No. 81, while the persons junior, were placed above, against which, he alleges to have made representation, but the same remained unconsidered. Then, it is contended, that he was included in the select list of candidates passing competitive examination for promotion, and was placed in that list at S. No. 81, while the persons junior, were placed above, against which, he alleges to have made representation, but the same remained unconsidered. Then, it is alleged, that though the petitioner was promoted earlier, they cannot be placed in disadvantageous position, simply because the representing respondent Hari Singh, could not be promoted earlier. 18. In my view, this representation does not at all make out any case, for entitling the representing respondent, to rank senior to the petitioner, on the basis of Anneuxres-2 and 3, coupled with Annexures 4 and 6. Admittedly, other respondents have neither appeared, nor have assailed their seniority position in Annexures 2, 3, 4, and 5. In view of the above factual, and legal position, it is not possible to accept the stand of the respondents, to the effect, that the petitioner was shown senior, as a result of some inadvertence, which was corrected vide Annexure-11. 19. So far the objection about alternative remedy, taken by the State is concerned, true it is, that the petitioner had an alternative remedy. However, the writ petition was admitted way back on 09.07.1991, and after expiry of 15 years, it would not be appropriate for me, at this belated hour, to relegate the parties to the alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. 20. Thus, considering the case of the petitioner, from any stand point, vis-a-vis the case of the private respondents, the irresistible conclusion is, that the petitioner ranked senior to the private respondents, in the promotional cadre of Inspectors. 21. Thus, the Writ Petition No. 3081 succeeds, and is allowed, Anneuxre-11, so far as it places the petitioner junior to the private respondents, is quashed, and the petitioner is directed to be placed above Hari Singh, the private Respondent No. 3, whose name finds place at S. No. 72 in Annexure-11, and below Ratan Singh, whose name finds place at S. No. 71, in Annexure-11. 22. 22. Obviously since the stand of the respondents in Writ No. 795/1993 is, that the case of the petitioner had not been considered for promotion, on account of non-finalisation of seniority position, and since his seniority position is being finalised hereby, as above, obviously the respondents will undertake all necessary consequential exercise, and if the petitioner is found entitled to any benefits of the above corrected seniority, e.g. promotion, from the date the persons junior to him have been promoted, same shall be given to the petitioner. 9.23. In view of the above, the Writ Petition No. 795 automatically stands disposed of . Since, it is informed, that the appeals against the penalty orders have not been decided so far, the respondents are directed to decide those appeals most expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from today. The parties shall bear their own costs.