JUDGMENT :

1.1 Since the issue involved in all these petitions is same, all these petitions are tagged, heard and disposed of together, with consent of all the learned advocates.

1.2 By way of present petitions, the petitioners seek to direct the respondents authorities to consider them for the post of Police Sub Inspector Mode-3 (Unarmed) from their cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector (Unarmed).

2. Heard Mr.S.I. Nanavati, learned senior advocate with Mr.Maulin G. Pandya and Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned senior advocate with Mr. R.B. Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr.N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate for the proposed petitioners and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents – State Authorities at length.

3. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents – State Authorities.

4.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. S.I. Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. Maulin G. Pandya for the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners are the Unarmed Assistant Sub Inspector.

4.2 As per their case, the issue involved in this group of petitions is that when they appointed on the basis of ad-hoc, whether that period of ad-hoc should be considered for the eligibility to appear in the departmental examination and also for the purpose of promotion.

4.3 He has submitted that so far as the stand of the Government is concerned, the ad-hoc period of three years as eligible for the purpose of appearing in the examination and five years for the purpose of promotion, cannot be considered.

He has submitted that the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017 itself suggests that such ad-hoc period is required to be taken into considered for the purpose of examination as well as for promotion. On that basis, the authorities have extended the benefits to the lower post as well as to the other posts also.

4.4 He has drawn the attention of this Court to the Notification dated 27.01.2020 issued by the Home Department of the State Government, more particularly Clause 3(1) and Clause 3(2) thereof.

He has submitted that merely relying upon these Clauses, the stand taken by the Government that once they are confirmed in the post of regular ASI, the period is to be calculated or a period to start thereafter only and even the petitioners are not eligible to apply also, is not correct by reading the rules and the notifications/Government Resolutions in proper context.

At this stage, he has relied upon the Notification dated 18.01.2017 issued by the Finance Department of the State Government, more particularly Clause 2 thereof.

He has further submitted that when appointing the petitioners vide order dated 18.05.2017, the Authority has clearly mentioned about the reference of the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017. He has submitted that as per conditions stipulated in the said notification, when the petitioners were appointed, they have been appointed giving the benefit of that ad-hoc period as per the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017.

4.5 He has further relied upon the Notifications dated 30.11.2015 and 07.10.2022 issued by the Home Department of the State Government.

4.6 He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the reply filed by respondent No.2 – the Director General and Inspector General of Police dated 07.11.2022, more particularly the contention towards Rule 3(2) of the Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed), Class III, (Departmental Examination) Rules, 2019.

He has submitted that Clause 2 of the Resolution dated 18.01.2017 is made applicable for Lok Rakshak in 2022.

He has submitted that the authority is not considering the case of the petitioners because of Clause 3(2) of the Notification dated 27.01.2020. He has submitted that the authority, as a defense, has contended in its reply that they want to follow this Clause of the Notification dated 27.01.2020.

4.7 He has submitted qua the defense taken by the respondent authority in its reply at Para 16 that, as far as the applicab