JUDGMENT 1. :- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the seniority list dated 9/12/1994 by which petitioner was shown junior to respondent No.6. 2. Shri R.K. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was initially appointed in the Indian Army on 26/6/1962 as Rifle Man. He was later on discharged from Indian Army after completing service of 7= years on 17/11/1969. When the Government of Rajasthan constituted a Battalian of R.A.C., petitioner applied and got selected for the post of Constable on 9/2/1970. The said battalion was raised for the Indo-Pak War and the Bangladesh Operation. Petitioner participated in both the events. Petitioner was also awarded excellent remarks in his APARs. While working with the respondents, petitioner along with various other persons was promoted on the post of Head Constable on recommendation of duly constituted selection board. This was because of his outstanding service record. Selection was held after taking the written test and the interview and thereafter the result was declared. Along with the petitioner, name of respondent No.6 Munshi Singh also appeared in the select list. Name of the petitioner was at Sr.No.11 in the select whereas name of respondent No.6 was at Sr.No.12 thereof. They were both promoted vide order dated 8/7/1971. Petitioner was senior to respondent No.6 as he was appointed on 9/2/1970 as Constable therefore he was assigned seniority at Sr.No.11. Besides, petitioner was having excellent service record whereas respondent No.6 was a member of para military force (CRPF). Respondents subsequently constituted 7th Battalion of RAC and members of the 7th Battalion including petitioner were sent to 10th Battalion in the year 1972. This Battalion was engaged to tackle the law & order situation in Mezorum, Agartala and Manipur. Petitioner submitted representation against the said transfer while he was posted at Izol. Many of his juniors including respondent No.6 were given the benefit of qualifying promotion cadre course which was mandatory requirement for promotion on the post of Head Constable and were promoted and made substantive on that post. Since there was no such facility available at Izol in the State of Mizorum, petitioner was deprived of this opportunity. Petitioner submitted representation against assignment of higher seniority to respondent No.6. Copies of the orders dated 4/12/1978, 27/3/1979 and 19/9/1981 are on record. Since there was no such facility available at Izol in the State of Mizorum, petitioner was deprived of this opportunity. Petitioner submitted representation against assignment of higher seniority to respondent No.6. Copies of the orders dated 4/12/1978, 27/3/1979 and 19/9/1981 are on record. Besides this, it is contended that petitioner was sent to Jodhpur from Manipur for appearing in the Promotional Cadre Course (P.C.C. Course) with four other persons vide order dated 14/6/1978 and subsequently he was transferred to Jaipur in 3rd Battalion on 18/7/1978. He joined at Jaipur. Respondent No.6 was treated as senior to the petitioner because respondent No.6 in earlier point of time passed the Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Platoon Commander in the year 1988 ignoring claim of the petitioner. Petitioner has produced the seniority list of 1984 in which his seniority was at Sr.No.682 whereas respondent No.6 was kept at Sr.No.323 and one Jagroop Singh, who was also junior to the petitioner, was kept at Sr.No.336 thereof only for the reason that petitioner passed the Promotion Cadre Course late, which was contrary to the order dated 8/7/1971 whereby both, the petitioner and the respondent No.6 were promoted on the earlier promotion post. Respondents have issued seniority list on 9/12/1994 of the post of Head Constable wherein petitioner was shown junior to respondent No.6. It was argued that petitioner could not appear in the Promotion Cadre Course because of transfer to Izol and on that basis he cannot be made to suffer. 3. Shri R.K. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was not at fault if he was not allowed to appear in the Promotion Cadre Course held in the year 1972. Petitioner made number of representations for holding such Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Head Constable but he was permitted to clear the same in the year 1979. Copies of representations dated 7/8/1996, 4/12/1978, 27/3/1979 and 21/3/1979 are on record. It is submitted that when petitioner was sent to Jodhpur from Jodhpur from Manipur vide letter dated 14/6/1978, Principal of Jodhpur Training College of the police department declined permission to the petitioner to appear in the Promotion Cadre Course saying that there was no requirement of qualifying the Promotion Cadre Course for ex-army personnel as they are already trained and he accordingly sent letter to the respondent-department. It is contended that some of the persons who were promoted as Platoon Commander earlier than petitioner are much junior to him. Requirement for promotion on the post of Platoon Commander is that candidate may have completed seven years as Head Constable and that petitioner was serving as Head Constable since 1971 onwards and therefore he will become eligible for promotion soon upon completion of seven years. Learned counsel submitted that as per Rules 29 and 30 of the Rules of 1974 and Rules of 1989, persons from same batch and board should have been allowed to complete their PCC Course for the same batch at a time. 4. Shri R.A. Katta, learned counsel appearing for respondents and Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel have opposed the writ petition and submitted that in the year 1972 when the 7th Battalion of RAC was broken, employees of its Battalion were posted on the vacant posts in other Battalions and petitioner was also posted in 10th Battalion of RAC, Bikaner who was sent to Mizoram. Petitioner can raise no grievance about his transfer because become a Government employee could be transferred to any place. Petitioner was transferred to Mizoram as per the Circular of the Inspector General of Police, RAC Range, Jaipur in the year 1993 that only junior most employees should be posted in Indian Reserved Battalion. It was argued that so long as the petitioner did not pass the Promotion Cadre Course, ad hoc promotion on the post of Head Constable could not be made permanent and that immediately after his passing the Promotion Cadre Course in the year 1979, he was confirmed in that post w.e.f. 1/8/1978 vide order dated 26/11/1982 and was posted in 3rd Battalion of RAC at Jaipur. However, petitioner could not be earlier allowed to complete the Promotion Cadre Course because at Mizoram there was no arrangement for holding such Promotion Cadre Course which was the compulsory requirement as per Rajasthan Subordinate Police Rules, 1974. It is contended that there is no rule which exempt the ex-army personnel for qualifying the Promotion Cadre Course. Petitioner obviously could be allowed to qualify to appear in the said course for promotion on the post of Platoon Commander and only when he qualified such course, he was promoted on the post of Platoon Commander vide order dated 4/5/1995. It is contended that there is no rule which exempt the ex-army personnel for qualifying the Promotion Cadre Course. Petitioner obviously could be allowed to qualify to appear in the said course for promotion on the post of Platoon Commander and only when he qualified such course, he was promoted on the post of Platoon Commander vide order dated 4/5/1995. One Munish Singh passed the qualifying test for Head Constable in 1978 along with PCC and was promoted on the post of Platoon Commander in 1986. He later qualified for promotion on the post of Platoon Commander in the year 1988 and completed PCC Course on 21/1/1989 therefore he was confirmed on that post. Seniority list of the post of Head Constable and that of the Platoon Commander has been accordingly prepared showing petitioner junior to Munshi Singh. In the final seniority list of Head Constable, petitioner's seniority is at Sr.No.67. He cannot raise objection about the same at this belated stage. 5. Grievance of the petitioner is that upon abolition of 7th Battalion, he was posted with 10th Battalion which was deployed in the Indo-Pak War and the Bangladesh Operation. Petitioner has made consistent plea that he was not permitted to appear in the PCC Course whereas his juniors were afforded such opportunity in 1972 itself. Petitioner has pleaded that he was not allowed to complete the PCC Course in 1972 because he for reasons beyond his control was posted at Mizoram where there was no facility of PCC Course. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents rather it has been admitted in para 6 of the reply where they state "that petitioner could not be allowed permission to complete the PCC Course because he was posted at Mizoram and other persons were allowed to complete the PCC Course because at Mizoram there were no arrangement for PCC". Petitioner thereafter made number of representations to the respondents for arranging PCC Course and eventually in 1978 when vide order dated 14/6/1978, he was sent to Training College at Jodhpur. He went there but the Principal of the College declined to give permission to the petitioner to appear in the PCC Course on the premise that ex-army personnel are exempted. Petitioner thereafter made number of representations to the respondents for arranging PCC Course and eventually in 1978 when vide order dated 14/6/1978, he was sent to Training College at Jodhpur. He went there but the Principal of the College declined to give permission to the petitioner to appear in the PCC Course on the premise that ex-army personnel are exempted. This fact asserted by the petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition, has not been specifically denied by the respondents and communication to this fact was sent by the Principal to the Police Department. All these facts have been asserted by the petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition which has not been specifically denied by the respondents in their reply to the writ petition. According to Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989, the persons enumerated in Column 5 of Section I, II and IV of the Schedule-I holding substantive rank, shall be eligible in the case of Constable on District/Unit, Battalion basis, Head Constables/Assistant Sub-Inspectors on Range basis, and Sub-Inspectors/Platoon Commanders on State basis, for promotion to the posts specified in column 2, of the Schedule-I subject to their possessing such minimum qualification and experience as are specified in Column 6 of the Schedule-I. Rule 27(1) provides that after the vacancies to be filled by promotion have been determined under rule 10, the Board as referred to in sub-rule (3) below shall be constituted. The Board shall prepare correct and complete list containing names not exceeding three times the number of vacancies out of the senior most eligible members of service, who have passed Part-I of the qualifying examination, specified in rule 29, by obtaining 40% marks in Parade, Practical and other Out-door test and 40% marks in written test with 45% marks in aggregate for promotion to the class of post concerned. Subrule (2) of Rule 27 similarly provides that the Boards constituted under this rule shall consider the cases of all the persons included i the list, interviewing all of them and shall prepare a list containing names of suitable candidates in order of seniority, who secure 45% marks in qualifying examination, Part II and 50% aggregate of the total marks of the qualifying examination, Parts I & II upto one and half times the number of such posts as are specified by Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police from time to time and as are determined to be filled under rule 10. Only exception that can be made is by way of invoking Rule 28 which provides that notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-rule (1) to (3) of rule 27 above : (a) Nomination for promotion cadre course for next higher rank upto 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 antidacoity, 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. Respondents have thus followed the rule of seniority. They have not shown that petitioner was in any manner to blame for his non appearance in PCC Course held in the year 1972 and it was because of his posting at Mizoram that petitioner ?could not appear in the Promotional Cadre Post held in the year 1972 and that the delay in qualifying the PCC Course occasioned for the reasons entirely attributable to the respondents themselves and not to the petitioner. Persons from same selection board and the list in which petitioner was selected and later appointed on the post of Constable were allowed to complete their PCC Course in the year 1972 for promotion on the post of Head Constable and have treated as substantive Head Constable were promoted as Platoon Commander earlier in point of time. Persons from same selection board and the list in which petitioner was selected and later appointed on the post of Constable were allowed to complete their PCC Course in the year 1972 for promotion on the post of Head Constable and have treated as substantive Head Constable were promoted as Platoon Commander earlier in point of time. Action of the respondents is therefore is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory and therefore is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition suffers from the delay and latches, cannot be accepted because petitioner not only before 1979 when he was allowed to appear in the PCC Course had been making number of representations but thereafter also he raised his grievance before different authorities of the respondents and filed writ petition way back in the year 1995 which has remained pending before this Court for last 14 years. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned-order/seniority list dated 9/12/1994 (Ann.12) is quashed and setaside. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh seniority list showing the petitioner over and above respondent No.6-Munshi Singh on the post of Head Constable of year 1972 treating the petitioner as having passed the Promotion Cadre Course. Case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Platoon Commander shall also be considered with reference to his immediate junior Munshi Singh in the cadre of Head Constable and if adjudged suitable, petitioner shall be entitled to promotion on the post of Platoon Commander w.e.f. 1972 on which which date his so named junior was promoted. He shall however for the intervening period shall only be entitled to notional benefits.Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents.Petition allowed. *******