JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The application for intervention was moved but the same is dismissed as withdrawn leaving it open for the applicant to take up his cause independently. 2. The petitioners before this Court have a common grievance, therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 3. Brief facts in essence are that the petitioners, who are Head Constables, have participated in the qualifying examination process conducted in terms of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules of 1989") for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (for short "ASI"). Bharatpur Range consisting of the Districts of Sawai Madhopur, Karauli, Dholpur and Bharatpur and the exercise was conducted at each district level by conducting a written examination and thereafter, the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989. 4. The petitioners claim that they have been able to crack the written examination and placed in merit. They appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test and also cleared the same. After clearing both the parts, they became qualified for promotion and they were supposed to be sent for Promotion Cadre Course (PCC). However, before they could be sent for PCC, on the directions issued by the Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Rajasthan, dated 14.06.2019, the qualifying examination for the year 2016-17 was cancelled with the direction to the I.G. Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur to re-conduct the qualifying examination for the year 2016-17. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that after petitioners have already participated and having qualified both parts of the examinations as envisaged under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989, there was no reason to cancel their examination. Learned counsel submits that entire exercise was duly followed in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989 and it is only thereafter, the petitioners were selected. If there were complaints, the same should be examined in relation to those candidates who have been found to have committed irregularities, therefore, written examination or Physical Efficiency Test of all the candidates should not be put in the same basket and they should not be made to suffer on account of certain irregularities committed relating to only few candidates. 6. 6. Learned counsel further submit that if a new exercise is conducted even those candidates who have been found to have cheated during earlier qualifying examination would get a chance of their participation. Learned counsel also submit that those candidates who did not apply for participation in qualifying examination at that relevant time would now get an opportunity and would therefore create a much wider competition for the candidates, who have already been selected, if a fresh selection is conducted. 7. Learned counsel also submit that a right was created in their favour after they have already been finally selected and they could not have been deprived from joining PCC. Learned counsel further submit that the same Board, which had conducted earlier promotion exercise, has been directed to conduct a fresh qualifying examination, therefore, the purpose of conducting a fresh selection process is otiose and the petitioners are unnecessarily being made to suffer. 8. Learned counsel relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 285 , Munna Roy Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 9 SCC 283 and in Anamica Mishra & Ors. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Ors.,1990 Supp 1 SCC 692 to submit that cancellation should be of the limited extent and not for all. 9. Notices in these cases were issued. The reply has been filed in some of the cases. The respondents have stated that while examination was conducted for promotion to the post of ASI, several complaints were received and Additional D.G. (Vigilance) directed an inquiry to be conducted in this regard. Accordingly, the Additional S.P. (Vigilance) conducted a factual inquiry with regard to selections conducted by the Board in Bharatpur Range. He examined all the documents including answer-sheets and submitted a detailed factual report to the Additional D.G. (Vigilance), which was placed before the D.G. Police, who in terms of Rule 33(2) of the Rules of 1989 after being satisfied that the proceedings have not been conducted fairly and in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1989, proceeded to cancel the proceedings of the Promotion Board for Bharatpur Range. It is on the basis of direction issued by the D.G. Police that the impugned order was passed cancelling the promotion exercise for the year 2016-17 and with the direction for conducting a fresh examination by the I.G. (Headquarters). 10. I have considered the submissions and perused the pleadings. 11. Rule 27 and 33 of the Rules of 1989 are reproduced as under: "27. Procedure of selection. - (1) 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. (2) The Boards constituted under this rule shall consider the cases of all the persons included in 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] [equal] as are specified by Director General-cumInspector General of Police from time to time and as are determined to be filled under rule 10. In interviewing candidates for [promotion regard shall be held to the following factors that:- (i) they have passed Part-I qualifying examination. (ii) their previous record of service (good and bad entries) (iii) integrity. (iv) intelligence, tact and energy. (v) technical and general knowledge. (vi) experience and efficiency. (vii) personality and character. (viii) physical fitness and capacity to discharge duties of the post to which promotion is to be made including aptitude to undertake extensive tours; and (ix) practical knowledge of law and procedure. (3) Constitution of Selection Boards:- (a) For promotion to the post of Head Constables:- (i) Dy. IG of Police Chairman (ii) Supdt. of Police/Commandant of the District/Unit concerned. Member (iii) One Addl. SP. outside the Range concerned to be nominated by DGP. Member (b) For the promotion to the post of A.S.I.- (i) Dy. IG of Police, Range/Unit or an officer or equivalent rank. Chairman (ii) Supdt. IG of Police Chairman (ii) Supdt. of Police/Commandant of the District/Unit concerned. Member (iii) One Addl. SP. outside the Range concerned to be nominated by DGP. Member (b) For the promotion to the post of A.S.I.- (i) Dy. IG of Police, Range/Unit or an officer or equivalent rank. Chairman (ii) Supdt. of Police/Commandant of the District/Unit Concerned. Member (iii) One SP./Commandant from outside the Range to be nominated by DGP. Member (c) For promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors/Platoon Commanders:- (i) Inspector General of Police Chairman (ii) Dy. Inspector General of Police. Member (iii) One Supdt. of Police/Commandant Member-Secretary (d) For promotion to the post of Inspectors/Company Commanders:- (i) Inspector General of Police Chairman (ii) Two Dy. Inspectors General of Police Members (iii) One Supdt. of Police/Commandant. Member Secretary (e) For promotion to the post of Head Constables and Asstt. Sub-Inspectors Police-Tele-Communications:- (i) Dy. Inspector General of Police Chairman (ii) Director, Police Tele-communications. Member (iii) One Technical expert Member (iv) One Supdt. of Police Member Secretary: Provided that in case when Dy. IGP is holding the charge of Director, Police Telecommunications he shall be the Chairman of the Board. (f) For promotion to the rank of Inspectors/Sub - Inspectors/Supervisors and Sub-Inspectors of Police Tele- communications:- (i) Inspector General of Police Chairman (ii) Dy. Inspector General of Police Member (iii) One Technical Expert Member (iv) Director, Police Tele-communications Member Secretary (4) For conducting examinations of courses conducted by the Directorate of Training for Police-Tele-communications as mentioned in the ScheduleI appended to the Rules, the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police shall constitute a Board for conducting examination for various training courses meant for the post of Inspectors. The remaining Board shall be constituted by the concerned Inspector General of Police. (5) All candidates included in the lists prepared by the various Boards under sub-rule (3) above including the candidates nominated under rule 28 shall be required to undergo the prescribed promotion cadre course, for which the candidates shall be nominated in accordance with seniority: Provided that such candidates as have been unable to attend or complete the promotion cadre course, for reasons beyond their control, shall be allowed to attend the next promotion cadre without incurring any loss of seniority. Explanation.- In case any question arises as to whether a candidate could not proceed for promotion cadre course or complete it for reasons beyond his control the decision of the Appointing Authority for the post for which the promotion cadre course is to be held, shall be final. (6) Names of the candidates who have failed to successfully complete the promotion cadre course on first attempt shall be given one more chance for passing the Promotion Cadre Course examination and their inter se seniority or successfully completing the course would remain intact. (7) The candidates who fail to attend/complete the promotion cadre course when nominated or who are unable to successfully complete the promotion cadre course as per provisions of sub-rules 5 & 6 shall not be eligible to undergo another promotion cadre course except on the basis of the recommendations of new promotion Board." "33. Disposal of representations and references. - (1) If at any time, a representation or reference relating to qualifying examination or preparation of Approved List or Promotion Cadre Course or its examination or any other training course or selection or any other examination conducted under these Rules, is made either by a member of the service or by any Board or by any Subordinate office, the orders of the Director General-cum- Inspector General of Police on it shall be final and ordinarily no further representations or reference on the point so decided, upon, shall lie to the Government. (2) If no receipt of information or on the basis of an enquiry, the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police is satisfied that the proceedings of a Board have not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of these Rules or orders and instructions issued in accordance with these rules or in just and fair manner, he may set aside the proceedings of such Board and may constitute a fresh Board for that purpose." 12. So far as the submission of learned counsel with regard to the petitioners having cleared both the parts of test as envisaged under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989 is concerned, suffice it to state that Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989 is part of exercise for promotion. No person can claim right for being promoted. So far as the submission of learned counsel with regard to the petitioners having cleared both the parts of test as envisaged under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989 is concerned, suffice it to state that Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989 is part of exercise for promotion. No person can claim right for being promoted. If for promotion purpose, a particular provision has been laid down which requires written examination as well as Physical Efficiency Test, the same would not give it colour of direct recruitment. All the judgments (supra) cited before this Court relating to direct recruitment are not in relation to the promotion and therefore, have no application in the facts of this case. 13. It is trite law that no person has a right to claim promotion, but only right available with an individual is for consideration for promotion. It is not the case of the petitioners that they would not be considered for promotion again. All of them would have a right to participate in exercise of promotion, which has been directed to have been convened by the order passed by the respondents. 14. As regards the apprehension of the petitioners with regard to increase of number of candidates, who would participate in fresh promotion exercise, this court finds such an argument to be wholly illusory. Those candidates who were found cheating in the earlier examination, obviously would be held ineligible to participate. As regards those candidates who had earlier foregone participation, they would ofcourse have a right for participation as circumstance for them has changed. It is a known jurisprudence in service matters that the persons who may have left out in earlier DPC but were found to be eligible to be considered, would be included in a review DPC. The exercise, which respondents propose to perform, is akin to a review DPC. The only difference being the method of selection for promotion, therefore, the arguments of the petitioners with regard to including the candidates, who were earlier left out and should not be allowed to participate is rejected. No other argument has been raised. 15. Upon direction of this Court, the Officer Incharge has placed the report for perusal of this Court. Having perused the report thoroughly, this Court is satisfied that the D.G. Police has exercised his powers under Rule 33(2) of the Rules of 1989 judiciously. No other argument has been raised. 15. Upon direction of this Court, the Officer Incharge has placed the report for perusal of this Court. Having perused the report thoroughly, this Court is satisfied that the D.G. Police has exercised his powers under Rule 33(2) of the Rules of 1989 judiciously. The discretion available under Rule 33(2) of the Rules of 1989 to the D.G.P. is to be exercised by a proper application of mind. From the report placed before this Court, it is apparent that the decision of the D.G. Police to reconvene the promotion exercise again for the year 2016-17 does not call for any interference. 16. However, the respondents are directed to conduct a fresh exercise for promotion in a fair and transparent manner by a Board, which will not include any of the members of the earlier Board. For this purpose, if required, the DGP would be authorised to appoint officers on deputation from different Range, who would conduct the Promotion Board impartially, fairly and strictly in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989. 17. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are dismissed. 18. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.