JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the written examination conducted on 8/12/2019 and 9/12/2019 for promotion from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector to Sub Inspector in Jodhpur Range against the vacancies of the year 2018-2019 and a direction to the respondents to conduct the written examination for promotion as per the syllabus provided under Standing Order No. 14/2017 as per the provisions of Rule 29(2) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (‘the Rules, 1989’). 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Constable and thereafter promoted on the post of Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector. By communication dated 22/11/2019 the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range proposed promotion from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector to Sub Inspector against the vacancies of the year 2018-2019 for 37 vacant posts through promotional examination and invited applications from eligible Assistant Sub Inspectors. A list of eligible candidates for participating in the written examination for promotion was issued on 2/12/2019 along with a programme, whereby, the written examination was to be held on 8/12/2019 and 9/12/2019. 3. It is indicated that as per the procedure for appointment by promotion under the Rules, 1989, the relevant Rules are Rule 26 to Rule 31, whereby, the names not exceeding three times the number of vacancies out of senior most eligible members of service is required to be prepared, who have passed Part-I of the qualifying examination specified in Rule 29 by obtaining 40% marks in Parade, Practical and other outdoor test. Whereafter, based on the interview, the list of suitable candidates in order of seniority is required to be prepared. It is further indicated that the qualifying examination for promotion prescribes under Rule 29(2) the syllabus for Part-I examination which is required to be issued by Director General cum Inspector General of Police from time to time. 4. It is claimed that vide Standing Order 14/2017 dated 23/10/2017 (Annex.4) the syllabus for conducting eligibility examination was issued, which provided total 300 marks and divided the same into three parts; (i) Written Examination - 150 marks (ii) Parade and Outdoor test - 75 marks and (iii) Record and interview - 75 marks. 4. It is claimed that vide Standing Order 14/2017 dated 23/10/2017 (Annex.4) the syllabus for conducting eligibility examination was issued, which provided total 300 marks and divided the same into three parts; (i) Written Examination - 150 marks (ii) Parade and Outdoor test - 75 marks and (iii) Record and interview - 75 marks. The written examination was further divided into three parts of 50 marks each i.e. (i) Law & Procedure (ii) Investigation work and (iii) Behaviour police process. It is alleged that in the question papers (Annex. 5, 6 & 7), which were given on 8th & 9th December, 2019 for the written examination, several questions were out of syllabus. The questions alleged to be out of syllabus have been indicated in para 9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition pertaining to the three papers. Based on the said aspect regarding respondents having asked the questions in written examination which were out of syllabus, it is alleged in the petition that as the questions were asked beyond the prescribed syllabus, the entire written examination has been vitiated and, therefore, the written examination and all subsequent procedures also stand vitiated. Based on the said submissions, prayers, as noticed hereinbefore, have been made. 5. A reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondent State, wherein, it is claimed that the Standing Order 14/2017 was not the only Standing Order prescribing the syllabus as various Standing Orders with respect to syllabus have been issued including Standing Order 6/97, which is still in force and, therefore, as the questions asked in the written examination were part of the syllabus prescribed by Standing Order 6/97, the plea raised apparently has no substance. 6. Further submissions have been made that the examination in question is eligibility test for promotion and the same is not a competitive examination and, therefore, looking to the nature of work performed by them, the questions alleged as beyond syllabus has no substance as the same could have been answered based on their experience as well. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, several candidates, who had participated in the written examination and based on the result were declared eligible, filed application for impleadment and they were impleaded as respondent nos. 6 to 38 to the present writ petition. 8. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, several candidates, who had participated in the written examination and based on the result were declared eligible, filed application for impleadment and they were impleaded as respondent nos. 6 to 38 to the present writ petition. 8. After filing reply, when the matter came up before this court on 5/2/2020, a coordinate bench of this Court passed the following order: “1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the prima-facie opinion that various questions put to the candidates during examination were out of the syllabus, which was prescribed by the respondents for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector to Sub Inspector (vide order dated 23.10.2019). 2. To cite few examples, questions No. of paper - Law & Procedure, apparently emanate from subjects and provisions, which had not been prescribed by the respondents in the above referred syllabus (Annex.4). 3. Opposing the arguments advanced by Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General, invited Court's attention towards Standing Order No. 06/1997 dated 06.06.1997 to contend that these questions are from the syllabus prescribed, vide Standing Order No. 06/1997. 4. A perusal of the Standing Order No. 14/2017, issued by the respondents on 23.10.2017 leaves no room for ambiguity that the same has been issued in supersession of the earlier standing order No. 06/1997. 5. The arguments advanced by the respondents that all the contentious questions, including above noted three questions are from the syllabus prescribed by the Standing Order No. 06/1997 cannot be countenanced. 6. The expression ‘supersession’ certainly means that it is in derogation of the earlier Standing Order and has been published while repealing the same (earlier standing order). 7. Matter requires consideration. 8. Admit. Issue notice. 9. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notices on behalf of the respondents. 10. List the matter on 04.03.2020. 11. Meanwhile, process of promotion on the post of Sub Inspector, pursuant to the notification dated 23.11.2019 for Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur for the vacancy of the year 2018-2019 shall remain stayed.” 9. Subsequent to passing of the said order, an early hearing application dated 21/11/2020 has been filed by the State, wherein, it was inter alia contended/proposed as under: “3. 11. Meanwhile, process of promotion on the post of Sub Inspector, pursuant to the notification dated 23.11.2019 for Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur for the vacancy of the year 2018-2019 shall remain stayed.” 9. Subsequent to passing of the said order, an early hearing application dated 21/11/2020 has been filed by the State, wherein, it was inter alia contended/proposed as under: “3. That it is most respectfully submitted that since passing of the order dated 05.02.2020 the promotion process has been stalled and as such, other selected persons stuck in the middle and department is also facing need of Sub Inspectors. Therefore, the answering respondents have came to the solution to the problem by proposal of deletion of questions alleged to the out of syllabus and the marks carried by such deleted question would be proportionately distributed as per the marks secured by the candidates for remaining questions. That being so the instant matter required urgent consideration by the Hon'ble Court so that the respondent department could revise the result and proceed accordingly with the promotion process.” (emphasis supplied) 10. The newly added respondents raised contentions by way of application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of interim order, wherein, it was indicated that the written examination was held on 8/12/2019 and 9/12/2019, the result was published on 11/12/2019, wherein, 80 candidates including the respondents were declared successful and those who succeeded were directed to remain present on 13/12/2019 for outdoor test and interview, the result whereof was declared on 13/12/2019 itself and the candidates were orally informed that they will be sent for Promotion Cadre Course (PCC) for the post of Sub Inspector. Further, directions were also issued to join PCC w.e.f. 9/2/2020. It is also alleged that though the petitioners were aware of the fact that result has been declared on 11/12/2019 and outdoor test and interview have also been conducted on 13/12/2019, the same was not questioned by the petitioners in time and said aspect was concealed resulting in passing of the order dated 19/12/2019 restraining the declaration of result of written examination, which had already been declared on 11/12/2019. 11. 11. Submissions have also been made that the petitioners have taken a chance to be selected by appearing in the written examination and now having failed in the said examination, they have challenged the result of the written examination and, therefore, they are dis-entitled to question the selection. 12. Though it is not indicated in the response that the alleged questions were out of syllabus or not, attempt has been made to indicate that based on the experience, the questions could be answered and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that it is apparent from the question papers (Annex.5, 6 & 7) and the syllabus published vide Standing Order 14/2017 (Annex.4), that several questions as enumerated in para 9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition are outside the syllabus. 14. Further submissions have been made that as the questions have been asked beyond the syllabus and the petitioners have failed to obtain the qualifying marks, the same has resulted in grave injustice to them and in case the questions from within the syllabus were asked, the result would have been different. 15. Responding to the submissions made by respondent nos. 6 to 38, it was submitted that there was hardly any time left with the petitioners to raise the objection as they had appeared in the written examination without knowing that the questions beyond the syllabus would appear in the question papers, the result was declared on 11/12/2019 prior to which there was no occasion for the petitioners to have raised objection and the writ petition was filed within five days of declaration of result, on 16/12/2019 and, therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the petitioners have raised the dispute belatedly. Merely because on account of prescribed schedule the respondents proceeded with the process of holding outdoor test and interview on 13/12/2019, the same cannot take away the right of the petitioners to question the validity of the question papers itself. 16. Submissions were made that the claim made by the respondents regarding syllabus prescribed vide Annex.4 being in addition to the existing Standing Order is baseless as the same was issued in supersession of the Standing Order 6/97 and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard has no substance. 16. Submissions were made that the claim made by the respondents regarding syllabus prescribed vide Annex.4 being in addition to the existing Standing Order is baseless as the same was issued in supersession of the Standing Order 6/97 and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard has no substance. It was emphasized that now by filing the application for early hearing, the respondent - State has itself conceded that the questions asked were beyond syllabus and has proposed a solution, which amounts to admission and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 17. Learned counsel for the State made submissions that on account of interim order granted by the Court the entire promotion process has been stalled and that the respondents were facing scarcity of Sub Inspectors and, therefore, the respondents have decided to propose the solution as indicated in para 3 of the application. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 6 to 38, though did not dispute the fact that the questions as indicated in para 9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition were beyond the syllabus as prescribed in Annex.4, however, made submissions seeking to indicate that the petitioners have participated in written examination and by not raising any objection before declaration of result, were estopped from challenging the same and that the nature of questions despite being beyond the syllabus, could have been answered by the petitioners and that they may have attempted those alleged out of syllabus questions and having failed to secure qualifying marks are now questioning the same which is not permissible and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 19. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 20. The case of the petitioners is specific, inasmuch as they have pointed out the questions, which according to them were beyond the syllabus as prescribed in Annex.4 and have sought consequential relief. As noticed hereinbefore, though in the reply the respondent State has sought to contest the said aspect about the questions being beyond syllabus, relying on the previous Standing Orders, however, as the Standing Order 14/2017 (Annex.4) is categorical, wherein, the Standing Order 6/97 has been superseded in so many words, the plea raised being without any substance, the State now by way of application has proposed a ‘solution to the problem’. As observed hereinbefore, the respondent nos. As observed hereinbefore, the respondent nos. 6 to 38 also have not disputed the fact that the questions as indicated by the petitioners were beyond the syllabus. 21. In view thereof, the allegations made in the petition regarding several questions being beyond syllabus stands established. 22. The plea raised by the respondent nos. 6 to 38 pertaining to estoppel has apparently no substance inasmuch as the estoppel based on the ground of having participated in the examination cannot be claimed by any stretch of imagination. It is not a case where the petitioners have questioned the validity of the Standing Order 14/2017 (Annex.4), rather they are relying on the said Standing Order to claim that the questions which have been put in the written examination were out of syllabus. Merely by attempting the question paper, which contained questions which are out of syllabus cannot create any kind of estoppel against those who have participated in the examination and it is always open for them to seek redressal of their grievance qua the questions being out of syllabus either from the authorities and/or in accordance with law. 23. So far as the plea of alleged delay on the part of the petitioners as alleged by the respondent nos. 6 to 38 is concerned, the said submission also has no substance inasmuch as merely because the process adopted was swift, wherein, the written examination was held on 8th and 9th December, 2019 & the result was declared on 11/12/2019 and outdoor test and interview were held on 13/12/2019, filing of petition on 16/12/2019 cannot be termed as having been filed belatedly. The fact that after the declaration of result on 11/12/2019 and filing of petition, outdoor test and interview were held in between, cannot have any implication as with the declaration of result on 11/12/2019 and the petitioners having failed to obtain the qualifying marks, the subsequent events were of no implication as such, it cannot be said that the petitioners have approached this Court belatedly. 24. In view thereof, the feeble attempts made on the part of respondents no. 6 to 38 in seeking to question the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds of estoppel and delay have no substance. 25. 24. In view thereof, the feeble attempts made on the part of respondents no. 6 to 38 in seeking to question the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds of estoppel and delay have no substance. 25. In view of the above discussion, as the aspect of questions put during the written examination are admittedly out of syllabus as noticed hereinbefore, the respondents need to take steps as proposed by them, which would redress the grievance of the petitioners. 26. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The respondents are directed to delete the questions which are out of syllabus and proportionately distribute the marks of deleted questions in the rest of questions of respective papers and then re-evaluate the marks obtained by the candidates and declare the result and if the petitioners obtain the requisite qualifying marks, they be subjected to further process of parade, outdoor test and interview and thereafter redetermine the list of candidates, entitled to participate in the Promotion Cadre Course. Those candidates, who have obtained eligibility vide result dated 11/12/2019, have undergone the parade, outdoor test and interview and continue to remain eligible after re-evaluation as directed hereinbefore, need not be subjected to parade, outdoor test and interview all over again. 27. Needful may be done by the respondents with utmost expedition. 28. No order as to costs.