Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2346 (RAJ)

V. K. Gaur v. Union of India

2019-08-30

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition by making following prayers:- "(i) direct respondents No. 1 to 5 to convene the review selection committee meeting within a month to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to IPS against the vacancies of the year 2006-07. (ii) direct respondents that in the event of his selection to IPS he be given promotion, seniority and consequential benefits within one month from the date his juniors have been given promotion. (iii) direct respondents to review the name of Bharat Lal Meena promoted to IPS in view of the withdrawal of his promotion orders to selection scale of IPS vide order dated 18.2.2011. (iv) quash the promotion orders of Shri Bharat Lal Meena to selection scale of RPS against the year 1997-98 as indicated in the seniority list dated 15.3.2013. (v) direct respondents to re-prepare the seniority list of RPS selection scale from 1996 onwards as per the cadre strength operating in the relevant year and no more. (vi) direct further to redraw the seniority list of RPS officers promoted to selection, super time and higher super time strictly according to the sanctioned strength in each cadre in the relevant years." 2. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that the respondent-State acted in arbitrary manner in denying legal right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion to Indian Police Service (IPS) in spite of order passed by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 05.10.2010 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 352/2005, V.K. Gaur vs. State of Rajasthan and Another whereby penalty order passed against the petitioner was set aside and all consequential benefits were given. The petitioner has also raised grievance challenging the action of the State Government of giving promotion to the junior officers while considering the petitioner's promotion to IPS. 3. The facts, in nutshell pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed to Rajasthan Police Service (RPS) junior scale by direct recruitment, in the selection process held by RPSC in the year 1982. The petitioner has pleaded that final seniority list was issued by the State Government on 19.12.2005 showing position of seniority of RPS officers in the super-time scale, selection scale and senior scale and the petitioner is said to be assigned seniority at S. No. 68 in the senior scale against the year 1996-97. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that final seniority list was issued by the State Government on 19.12.2005 showing position of seniority of RPS officers in the super-time scale, selection scale and senior scale and the petitioner is said to be assigned seniority at S. No. 68 in the senior scale against the year 1996-97. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that he was senior to the private respondent No. 6 Surendra Kumar, private respondent No. 7 Om Prakash and private respondent No. 8 Balmukund Verma and yet he was denied promotion to senior scale due to punishment imposed on him. The petitioner is said to have challenged the penalty order by filing a petition before this court and meanwhile, the respondent Nos. 8 Balmukund Verma (ST) got promotion to selection scale of RPS against the vacancy of the year 2001-02 and respondent No. 6 Surendra Kumar and respondent No. 9 Bharat Lal Meena got promotion to selection scale of RPS against the vacancies of the year 2003-04 and the petitioner was promoted to senior scale against the vacancy of the year 1996-97 and to selection scale against the vacancy of the year 2005-06. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that all the private respondents continued to remain senior to the petitioner in the selection scale and they were promoted to super-time scale of RPS from time to time prior to the petitioner's promotion. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.10.2010 passed an order in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 352/2005, filed by the petitioner, setting aside penalty order imposed on the petitioner in the year 1992 and further granted all the consequential benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-State issued an order dated 01.11.2011 after convening a review DPC granting senior scale, selection scale and super-time scale to the petitioner over and above his juniors who were given benefit earlier. The petitioner was accordingly granted senior scale of RPS against the vacancy of the year 1995-96 instead of the year 1996-97; selection scale from the year 2003-04 and super-time scale from the year 2007-08. The petitioner has pleaded that his seniority in super-time scale was placed above Surendra Kumar and as such he became senior to the private respondent Bharat Lal Meena in all scales. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that his seniority in super-time scale was placed above Surendra Kumar and as such he became senior to the private respondent Bharat Lal Meena in all scales. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that he moved contempt petition before the Division Bench of this Court for non-compliance of the order dated 05.10.2010 and since the respondent- State had given benefits to the petitioner, the Division Bench found out that sufficient compliance of the order has been made and for the remaining relief, the petitioner was granted liberty to avail appropriate remedy. 8. The petitioner has pleaded that he made several representations for according him promotion to IPS Cadre and correspondence took place between State and UPSC and the respondent-State instead of holding review DPC for considering the petitioner's name for promotion for IPS, issued a revised seniority list of RPS officers of selection scale from the year 1997-98 to 2012-13 vide order dated 15.03.2013. 9. The petitioner has pleaded that in the revised seniority list, showing position as on 01.04.2002, the petitioner though was given selection scale of RPS in the year 2001-02 and placed above Surendra Kumar, Om Prakash and Balmukund Verma but the private respondent Bharat Lal Meena was shown as promoted to selection scale against the vacancy of the year 1997-98 and assigned seniority at S. No. 46 even when the total selection scale posts in the cadre were only 34. 10. The petitioner has pleaded that seniority list dated 15.03.2013 was issued in super-session of all the earlier seniority lists issued from 01.04.1998 to 01.04.2012. The petitioner is said to have obtained the relevant information from the State Government under Right to Information Act, 2005 and as per the information supplied, the cadre strength of RPS was revised and same was only 34, as per the Notification dated 27.06.1996. The petitioner has enclosed the Notification dated 27.06.1996 showing 34 posts in selection scale of RPS as Annexure-12 and has also placed on record a Notification dated 07.07.2005, determining the strength of posts in selection scale of RPS as 45. 11. The petitioner has enclosed the Notification dated 27.06.1996 showing 34 posts in selection scale of RPS as Annexure-12 and has also placed on record a Notification dated 07.07.2005, determining the strength of posts in selection scale of RPS as 45. 11. The petitioner has pleaded that by publishing revised seniority list of RPS selection scale as on 01.04.1998 vide order dated 15.03.2013, the State Government has malafidely increased the cadre strength of RPS selection scale from 34, as on 01.04.1997, to 46 and the private respondent Bharat Lal Meena has been given promotion to selection scale against the year 1997-98 and placed his seniority at S. No. 46, while earlier he was given promotion to selection scale against the year 2003-04, as per seniority list dated 19.12.2005. 12. The petitioner has pleaded that the private respondent Bharat Lal Meena was promoted to selection scale of RPS against the vacancy of the year 1997-98 and further promoted to IPS cadre in spite of a criminal case pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Weir, District Bharatpur after cognizance has been taken against him on 27.05.1996. The petitioner has alleged that the State Government has not acted in fair manner in preponing the promotion of private respondent Bharat Lal Meena to selection scale from the year 2003-04 to 1997-98 in spite of criminal proceedings pending in the year 1996 before his year of promotion. The petitioner has also pleaded that the private respondent Bharat Lal Meena was given promotion to IPS cadre vide order dated 26.08.2013 ignoring and suppressing the fact of pendency of criminal proceedings against him and withdrawal of benefit of selection scale of RPS. 13. The respondent-State has filed reply to the writ petition and pleaded that in compliance of order dated 05.10.2010, passed by this court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 352/2005, V.K. Guar vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, review selection committee meeting was held on 11.12.2014 to review the select list of the year 2007. 13. The respondent-State has filed reply to the writ petition and pleaded that in compliance of order dated 05.10.2010, passed by this court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 352/2005, V.K. Guar vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, review selection committee meeting was held on 11.12.2014 to review the select list of the year 2007. The select list of the year 2008 was also reviewed in the very same meeting in compliance of order dated 17.12.2012 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16293/2012 filed by one Mahipal Singh and the review selection committee, which met on 11.12.2014, recommended the name of the petitioner to be included in the select list of the year 2007 and on the recommendation of the review selection committee, vide Notification dated 26.12.2014, the Government of India appointed the petitioner to the Indian Police Service, on probation and allocated him Rajasthan cadre. 14. The respondent-State has further averred that the petitioner was appointed to IPS cadre from the date of appointment of his immediate junior i.e. 16.02.2009 till 31.12.2014 i.e. the date of his superannuation, vide Notification dated 20.02.2015. 15. The respondent-State has pleaded that at the time of review DPC of the year 1997-98, in the selection scale of RPS, the total cadre posts were 34, however, vide order dated 20.09.1997, one post of RPS senior scale was upgraded to selection scale and further with consent of the Finance Department, 10 ex-cadre posts of RPS selection scale were taken and the review DPC, for the years 1997-98 to 2004-05, was convened for total 45 posts. The consent of Finance Department on the notesheet has been filed as Annexure R-3 with the reply. The respondent-State has specifically given details of number of posts in para 23 of the reply, which is quoted hereunder:- "It is further pertinent to submit here that as on 1.4.1997 34 officers were working in RPS selection scale and thus there were 11 vacant posts. Apart from that, 1 post became vacant due to retirement of Shri G.F.L. Verma, 1 post become vacant due to deputation of Shri S.C. Vyas, whereas 4 posts become vacant due to promotion in IPS and 5 post become vacant due to promotion in super time scale. Apart from that, 1 post became vacant due to retirement of Shri G.F.L. Verma, 1 post become vacant due to deputation of Shri S.C. Vyas, whereas 4 posts become vacant due to promotion in IPS and 5 post become vacant due to promotion in super time scale. Therefore, consequent upon filling up these 22 vacant posts by promotion, in the seniority list of RPS selection scale issued as on 1.4.1998, there were 46 officers because Shri S.C. Vyas who was on deputation was also figured in the said seniority list." 16. The respondents have taken a specific plea that the cadre strength of RPS selection scale was determined with the consent Finance Department and there was no question of any mala fide and promotion of the private respondent Bharat Lal Meena to selection scale against the quota of 1997-98, was based on his seniority-cum-merit. 17. The respondents have submitted that so far as cognizance against private respondent Bharat Lal Meena on account of criminal case registered against him is concerned, the order dated 25.11.2005, giving selection scale to Bharat Lal Meena against the year 2003-04, was cancelled vide order dated 18.02.2011 and the order dated 18.02.2011 was challenged by Bharat Lal Meena in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2720/2011 before this Court and the Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.03.2011 stayed operation of the order dated 18.02.2011 and as such reversion of Bharat Lal Meena from selection scale to senior scale granted on recommendation made by DPC against the year 2003-04, was to remain stayed. 18. The respondent-State has pleaded in the reply that the petitioner was already promoted to IPS cadre w.e.f. the date of appointment of his immediate junior i.e. 16.02.2009 till 31.12.2014 i.e. the date of his superannuation and as such grievance in the writ petition does not survive and the writ petition needed to be dismissed. 19. The petitioner has filed rejoined and has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 20. 19. The petitioner has filed rejoined and has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 20. The petitioner has also filed an application for taking on record subsequent facts and documents and along with the application, he has filed documents namely Annexure A/21 - copy of the provisional seniority list of senior scale of RPS as on 01.04.1997, issued vide letter dated 23.01.2013; Annexure A/22 - copy of seniority list of senior scale of RPS issued on 24.03.1998 and Annexure A/23 - copy of minutes of DPC of selection scale of RPS held on 24.01.2013. 21. The petitioner, in person, has made following submissions before this court:- (a) The cadre strength has not been increased by the competent authority i.e. the Governor and as such the cadre strength could not be raised from 34 to 45. The cadre strength in past has been determined, as per Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954, by the order of Governor on 27.06.1996 and 07.07.2005 and increased to 45. (b) The Finance Secretary who is an officer junior to Additional Chief Secretary (Home) by his opinion was not competent to increase the cadre or to create ex-cadre post. (c) There is no provision of creation of ex-cadre post and the same was also not possible with retrospective effect by effecting the promotion in selection scale of RPS between 1997-98 to 2004-05. (d) As far as suitability of the candidate - private respondent Bharat Lal Meena is concerned, he could not have been promoted till pendency of criminal case and this fact was either not brought into notice before the DPC or order of Government was ignored. (e) As per minutes of DPC dated 14.01.2013, 50% of the posts were to be filled by merit and 50% by seniority-cum-merit and instead of filling the seats in equal ratio of 11-11, 10 persons were selected in merit and 12 persons were selected on seniority-cum-merit and as such purposely the private respondent Bharat Lal Meena was placed at S. No. 22. (f) Three persons senior to Bharat Lal Meena were not selected on seniority-cum-merit basis and minutes mentioned "not found suitable on the basis of merit" but three persons, senior to Bharat Lal Meena were not considered on seniority-cum-merit basis. (f) Three persons senior to Bharat Lal Meena were not selected on seniority-cum-merit basis and minutes mentioned "not found suitable on the basis of merit" but three persons, senior to Bharat Lal Meena were not considered on seniority-cum-merit basis. (g) There has been a non-compliance of Rule 8.11 of the circular dated 04.06.2008 as proforma and questionnaire were not prepared before meeting of DPC. 22. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of S.K. Ghosh and Another vs. Union of India and Others, 1968 SLR 741 and in the case of Dr. N.C. Singhal vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1980 SC 1255 . 23. Learned counsel Mr. Ajeet Bhandari appearing for the intervener-Mahendra Singh Choudhary, has supported the arguments of the petitioner-in person. Mr. Bhandari submitted that cadre strength in selection scale was not increased by the Governor from 35 to 45 and as such the entire exercise of review DPC was vitiated in the eye of law. Mr. Bhandari submitted that the cadre strength was increased by order dated 07.07.2005 and the same could not have been made applicable to the vacancies for the year 1997-98. Mr. Bhandari submitted that if review DPC was to be held for any reason, the same was required to be confined to only 35 vacancies. Mr. Bhandari has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Veena Verma and Others, (2009) 14 SCC 734 . 24. Mr. Shobhit Tiwari, counsel appearing for the applicant-Karnal Bahadur Singh Kapoor and others has submitted that there is no rule of ex-cadre post in the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 and encadrement of ex-cadre post requires specific Rule. The Notification dated 07.07.2005 cannot be given retrospective effect to increase the cadre strength of RPS selection scale to 45. The Finance Secretary has no power to bypass Rule 6 of the Rules, 1954 and the Notification for increase in cadre strength has to be issued by the Governor. Counsel also submitted that the review DPC, with cadre strength of 45, was to protect reversion of excess promotees from 1997-98 to 2004-05 and it has resulted into unjustified upgradation of respondent No. 9 Bharat Lal Meena from the year 2003-04 to 1997-98. Counsel also submitted that the review DPC, with cadre strength of 45, was to protect reversion of excess promotees from 1997-98 to 2004-05 and it has resulted into unjustified upgradation of respondent No. 9 Bharat Lal Meena from the year 2003-04 to 1997-98. The circular dated 04.06.2008 providing inclusion of vacancies, coming due to deputation, was not applicable to the vacancies of the year 1997-98. 25. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has made following submissions:- (a) The petitioner does not have locus standi to question the promotion of Bharat Lal Meena against the vacancy of the year 1997-98. The petitioner was promoted to selection scale against the year 2001-02 and there is no claim of the petitioner for selection scale of RPS prior to the year 2001-02. The private respondent Bharat Lal Meena was promoted against the vacancies reversed for ST category and the petitioner cannot compete against the reserved post and as such, he is estopped to challenge the promotion of Bharat Lal Meena. (b) The petitioner has not placed on record the promotion order of Bharat Lal Meena and without placing the same on record and without challenge being made to the same, the petitioner cannot challenge the seniority assigned to Bharat Lal Meena. (c) The petitioner has not impleaded all those persons as party in the present writ petition against whom he seeks relief. The petitioner has failed to implead all the ten persons as party respondent, who have been granted promotion in selection scale of RPS by virtue of holding review DPC against total 45 posts. (d) The petitioner is estopped to challenge the holding of review DPC on 45 posts as the petitioner himself has been beneficiary of the increased number of posts. The claim of the petitioner could not have been considered, had the posts not been increased and as such the petitioner having taken benefit of increase of posts, cannot be permitted to question the same. (e) Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 does not require prior sanction of the Governor for considering the strength of cadre and it is the Government who is competent authority to create a particular number of posts or to abolish them. (e) Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 does not require prior sanction of the Governor for considering the strength of cadre and it is the Government who is competent authority to create a particular number of posts or to abolish them. (f) The circular dated 18.02.1984 issued for the purpose of convening DPC permits to include those vacancies against which the Finance Department had granted permission and as such, the State was within its domain to fill 46 posts of super-time scale of RPS. (g) The petitioner has nowhere pleaded about any mala fides against any of the authorities and bald allegations on mala fides cannot be examined by this court in absence of proper pleadings and grounds raised therein. (h) The private respondent Bharat Lal Meena having been promoted against the vacancy of ST category, the petitioner cannot be considered against such category and as such no challenge can be laid by the petitioner. 26. The learned Advocate General has referred to a table as how vacancies were available in the year 1997-98, which reads as follows:- Vacancies in the year 1997-98 Particulars General SC ST Total Cadre Posts 33 7 5 45 Officers 21 8 5 34 Gap 12 below 1 above - 11 Retd. (Shri G.L. Verma) - 1 - 1 Deputation (Shri S.C. Vyas) 1 - - 1 Promotion in IPS - 1 3 4 Promotion in Super Time 5 - - 5 Total Vacancy 18 1 3 22 27. The learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Ucchab Lal Chhanwal, 2014 (1) SCC 144 and in the case of Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Another vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1970 SC 35 and order dated 18.08.1999 passed by the Single Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2861/1998, Vinod Pareekh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others and connect writ petition. 28. Heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 29. This Court, at the first instance, will deal with the prayer sought by the petitioner in his writ petition. 30. The prayer Nos. (i) and (ii) are with regard to convening of review selection committee meeting for promotion to IPS for considering the case of the petitioner's seniority and consequential benefits. 29. This Court, at the first instance, will deal with the prayer sought by the petitioner in his writ petition. 30. The prayer Nos. (i) and (ii) are with regard to convening of review selection committee meeting for promotion to IPS for considering the case of the petitioner's seniority and consequential benefits. The reply of the respondents reveals that the petitioner has been promoted to IPS cadre and to the same effect, Notification dated 26.12.2014 was issued and the petitioner has been further granted benefit in IPS cadre from the date of appointment of his immediate junior i.e. w.e.f. 16.02.2009 till 31.12.2014 i.e. the date of superannuation of petitioner, vide Notification dated 20.02.2015. The petitioner having been promoted and given consequential benefits, the prayer Nos. (i) and (ii) sought, in the writ petition cannot be granted. 31. The prayer No. (iii) sought by the petitioner in the writ petition to review the name of the private respondent Bharat Lal Meena, as he was promoted to IPS in view of withdrawal of his promotion order to selection scale of IPS vide order dated 18.02.2011, this court finds that the order dated 18.02.2011 of the private respondent, Bharat Lal Meena has been stayed by this court while passing order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2720/2011 and interim order dated 07.03.2011 had stayed the reversion of Bharat Lal Meena from selection scale to senior scale granted on recommendation made by DPC. This court in view of the interim order dated 07.03.2011 passed by this Court, cannot pass any order or issue directions, as has been sought in the prayer No. (iii). 32. The prayer No. (iv), sought by the petitioner in the writ petition, to quash the promotion order of Bharat Lal Meena to grant selection scale of RPS against the year 1997-98, as indicated in the seniority list dated 15.03.2013, cannot be granted as the petitioner has not placed on record any promotion order of Bharat Lal Meena and as such, the petitioner cannot be granted relief of setting aside the promotion order until the same is challenged specifically by the petitioner by placing it on record. 33. The prayer Nos. 33. The prayer Nos. (v) and (vi) sought by the petitioner in the writ petition to re-draw the seniority list of RPS officers according to the sanctioned strength in each cadre i.e. selection scale, super-time scale and higher super-time scale, cannot be granted by this court in view of the detailed findings recorded in subsequent paragraphs of this order. 34. The submission of petitioner that cadre strength of RPS selection scale can only be increased by order of the Governor, it would be appropriate to quote Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 before dealing with the submission and the same reads as follows:- "6. Composition and strength of Service - The nature of posts and strength of posts in each grade of the Service shall be such as may determined by the Government from time to time provided that the Government may:- (i) create any post permanent or temporary, from time to time, as may be found necessary and may abolish any post in the like manner without thereby entitling any person to any compensation. (ii) leave unfilled or hold in abeyance or allow to lapse any such post, permanent or temporary, from time to time, without thereby entitling any person to any compensation." 35. A bare perusal of Rule 6 of the Rules, 1954 reveals that nature and strength of post shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. The said Rule gives power to the Government to create any permanent or temporary post or it may further abolish any post and can also leave the post unfilled or hold in abeyance. The definition of "Government and State" is given in Rule 4(c) of the Rules, 1954 and "Government and State" means respectively the Government of Rajasthan and the State of Rajasthan. 36. This Court finds that the Government of Rajasthan, Home (Group-I) Department had issued the Notifications dated 27.06.1996 and 07.07.2005, as per Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954. The said Notifications have been issued in the name of the Governor by the Secretary to the Governor. 36. This Court finds that the Government of Rajasthan, Home (Group-I) Department had issued the Notifications dated 27.06.1996 and 07.07.2005, as per Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954. The said Notifications have been issued in the name of the Governor by the Secretary to the Governor. The Government, if in the instant case, has increased the cadre strength on the basis of availability of post and working of certain persons additionally beyond the cadre strength, the Government after having concurrence of the Finance Department, if has increased the post from 34 to 45 in selection scale, no fault can be found with such exercise of power by the respondents. 37. This court finds that the Rules relating to determination of vacancies for the purpose of promotion, the department has issued a circular dated 18.02.1984 whereby newly created post, if any, included in the budget or as may have been agreed to by the Finance Department upto the date the vacancies are determined, the same can be considered for the purpose of filling such vacancies by the Departmental Promotion Committee. This Court finds that in the present case, if the Finance Department had granted its approval, no fault can be found with such an exercise. 38. The submission of the petitioner, in person, that note-sheet of the Finance Secretary reveals that permission granted to create ten ex-cadre post, will not confer power to the respondent-State to convene meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee for 45 cadre posts, this Court finds that if 45 number of posts in selection scale were available and one post was available on account of one person going on deputation, such 46 posts could not have been treated as ex-cadre posts and the posts have rightly been filled by the respondents by convening the meeting of DPC. 39. This Court finds that creation of post or abolition of post is a prerogative of the employer. The employee for that matter cannot raise grievance that the employer should be restrained to create post. 40. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned Advocate General that the authorities were required to fill 22 vacancies in the year 1997-98 and as such the meeting of review DPC was convened to fill those posts. 41. The employee for that matter cannot raise grievance that the employer should be restrained to create post. 40. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned Advocate General that the authorities were required to fill 22 vacancies in the year 1997-98 and as such the meeting of review DPC was convened to fill those posts. 41. This Court finds that the petitioner himself has been considered for grant of selection scale and accordingly, as per his seniority, he has been assigned selection scale. The enlargement/increase in the number of posts has in fact resulted into consideration of cases of employees including the petitioner and as such the petitioner himself being a beneficiary of such an exercise, cannot be permitted to assail the same. 42. This Court further finds substance in the submission of the learned Advocate General that the petitioner cannot be considered against the post meant for ST candidate and since the private respondent Bharat Lal Meena was promoted against the ST quota, the petitioner cannot get the said quota as he belongs to General category and as such the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained. 43. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned Advocate General that the petitioner has not challenged the promotion of ten other candidates who have been considered for selection scale in RPS and if the prayer of the petitioner is accepted to consider the cases of 34 candidates in selection scale, the persons who have been promoted are not party before this Court and in absence of such parties, no challenge can be allowed to be laid by the petitioner. 44. This Court finds that the petitioner having got the benefit of selection scale in the year 2001-02 and further being promoted in IPS cadre and retired on attaining the age of superannuation, he cannot be permitted to unsettle the promotions and seniority of the officer in all cadres of RPS, as has been prayed by the petitioner in the prayer nos. (v) and (vi) of the writ petition. 45. (v) and (vi) of the writ petition. 45. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of S.K. Ghosh (supra), this court finds that the Apex Court has reiterated the principle that change in seniority by an arbitrary order affects seniority and the same being a civil right of the Government servant, can violate Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The present issue involved in the writ petition, as raised by the petitioner, is not related to the controversy which has been decided by the Apex Court, while considering the change in seniority. 46. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.C. Singhal (supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court was examining the grievance of a person due to his non-promotion. The Apex Court on the facts of the case found that the petitioner himself was not competent to challenge the promotion of the private respondents, as he himself was not qualified. The said case is of no relevance and of no assistance to the petitioner. 47. Accordingly, the present writ petition having no force, stands dismissed. The interim order passed by this court also stands vacated.