ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.7.2024 issued by respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the select list for promotion/conferral of charge of higher post of Head Constable (Driver) by not deleting the name of respondent No.5 stood already promoted on the post of Head Constable (GD) before issuance of the impugned order. 2. Facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable (MT) on 8.5.2002 and was absorbed on the aforesaid post on 16.12.2005. In the fit list of Constable (MT/ Driver) for the year 2021 issued by respondent No. 3 (Annexure P/1), the name of the petitioner finds place at Sr. No. 51 and name of respondent No. 5 at Sr. No. 45. Similarly, in the fit list of the year 2024 issued vide order dated 8.6.2024 (Annexure P/2) names of 15 Constable : (MT/Driver) were included including the name of respondent No. - 5 whose name finds place at Sr. No. 10. It is pertinent to note that before inclusion of name of respondent No. 5 in the aforesaid fit list dated 8.6.2024 {supra), the name of respondent No. 5 was already included in the fit list of Constable (GD) issued vide covering letter dated 7.6.2024 (Annexure P/3) by the respondent No. 4 after approval from Respondent No.3 wherein name of Respondent No. 5 appears at Sr. No. 1. That, upon issuance of the fit list 8.6.2024 (supra) which erroneously included the name of respondent No. 5, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.6.2024 (Annexure P/4) to Respondent No. 3 which was forwarded by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 3 by covering letter dated 11.6.2024 (Annexure P/5). That, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, despite the fact that vide order dated 11.6.2024 (Annexure P/6), respondent No. 5 was already promoted/conferred with the charge of post of Head Constable (GD), the respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order dated 18.7.2024 (Annexure P/7) again promoting/conferring the charge of post of Head Constable (Driver/MT) to the respondent No. 5, vide Sr. No. 10 but has not considered the name of the petitioner who was next to be conferred with the charge of higher post of Head Constable (Driver/MT). No. 10 but has not considered the name of the petitioner who was next to be conferred with the charge of higher post of Head Constable (Driver/MT). That, to the further utter surprise of the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 25.7.2024 (Annexure P/8) respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the inclusion of the name of the petitioner shall not be in accordance with law. Thus, being aggrieved by the injustice done to him the present petition is filed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that as per GOP dated 10.2.2021 issued by the PHQ clause-6 clearly provides that any officer who has been included in the list of elegible candidates for officiating charge refused to accept the charge or did not join on the higher post within the time limit prescribed, his name can be deleted from the list of eligible candidates for officiating charge and the elegible candidates included in the list shall be given the charge. He argued that name of respondent No.5 who was already promoted to the post of Head Constable (GD) prior to issuance of list of eligible candidates was wrongly included in the list. He argued that list of eligible candidates was prepared for 15 candidates and if the name of respondent No.5 was deleted, the petitioner who was at S.No. 16 ought to have been considered for promotion/conferral of the charge of higher post as officiating. 4. Counsel for the State argued that petitioner is placing reliance on GOP dated 10.2.2021 for giving the officiating charge of the higher post. He argued that by order dated 20.6.2025 the PHQ has already stayed the said GOP dated 10.2.2021. Counsel for the State also relied on clause-6 and submitted that after preparation of the list in case if candidate included in the list of eligible candidates refused to join on the post or did not join within the period prescribed, he can apply again for the next time. The same shall be referred to the screening committee. 5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that claim of the petitioner cannot be denied on the basis of subsequent order dated 20.6.2025 which was issued during the pendency of the petition and the said order would not apply retrospectively. 6. The same shall be referred to the screening committee. 5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that claim of the petitioner cannot be denied on the basis of subsequent order dated 20.6.2025 which was issued during the pendency of the petition and the said order would not apply retrospectively. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in regard to aforesaid submission of the GOP dated 10.2.2021, this Court finds that said stay order would not apply retrospectively and would not defeat the right of the petitioner which had also accrued prior to issuance of the stay order dated 20.6.2025. 7. In regard to submission of the parties about clause-6, it is apposite to refer clause 6 of Annx.R/1 which reads as under:- ^^;fn d¨Ã vfèkdkjh ^^dk;Zokgd çÒkj^* d¢ fy, ik= ik, x, vfèkdkfj;¨a dh lwph esa vkus d¢ ckn fdlh Òh vkèkkj ij ^^çÒkj*^ çkIr djus ls badkj djrk gS ;k fuèkkZfjr le;kofèk esa bdkà çeq[k d¨ mPprj in ij çÒkj xzg.k djus d¢ fy, mifLFkfr ugÈ g¨rk gS] r¨ mldk uke ik=rk lwph ls l{ke çkfèkdkjh }kjk gVk;k tk ld¢xk v©j fQj vU; ik= vfèkdkfj;¨a d¨ ;g volj çnku fd;k tkosxkA ;fn Òfo"; esa ,slk vfèkdkjh iqu% mPp in dk ^^dk;Zokgd çÒkj^* çnku fd, tkus dk vkosnu nsrk gS r¨ çdj.k iqu% ^^NaVuh lfefr** d¨ Òstk tkosxk v©j rnkuqlkj çkIr çfrosnu vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA** 8. On bare perusal of clause-6 this Court finds no merit in the contention of counsel for the State. The clause unequivocally states that after a candidate included in the fit list of candidates for officiating charge refused to take over the charge or did not join in the time prescribed, his name can be removed from the list and the other eligible candidates will be given liberty. The other part of clause is not in respect of candidate who is included in the same list but it deals with the same candidate who refuses to take over the charge or does not join within the period prescribed, then he will be entitled to apply again for the charge in the next time. Thus, said part of clause would not apply to the case of the petitioner. Admittedly, name of respondent No.5 was wrongly included in the list of eligible candidate for the higher post as he was already promoted. After removal of his name from the list, petitioner was next candidate for consideration. Thus, said part of clause would not apply to the case of the petitioner. Admittedly, name of respondent No.5 was wrongly included in the list of eligible candidate for the higher post as he was already promoted. After removal of his name from the list, petitioner was next candidate for consideration. 9. This Court finds that action of the respondent is arbitrary and petitioner has been discriminated. Considering clause 6, it is directed that name of the petitioner will be included in the list of eligible candidates for higher charge after removing the name of respondent No.5 and petitioner will be given the charge of higher post of Head Constable (Driver) in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of copy of the order passed today. With the aforeaid, the petition stands disposed off.