The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rules 24 and 33 of the Rajasthan Police Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1974 in determining the seniority of the petitioner and the private respondents.

N.P. Gupta, J.-These two writ petitions are by the same petitioner, and are closely inter-related, and, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. Writ Petition No. 3081 has been filed by the petitioner against the State respondent, being Respondents No. 1 and 2, and private respondents, being Respondents No.3 to 6, praying for quashing Annexure-11 dated 20.04.1991, so also, that if during pendency of the petition any promotions are made in the junior scale of Rajasthan Police Service, on the basis of Annexure-11, then the same may also be declared illegal, and be quashed. It has also been prayed, that the State respondent be directed to promote the petitioner in the junior scale, on and from the date, Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have been promoted, with all consequential benefits, including assignment of seniority.

2. The averments of the petitioner are, that in response to advertisement, the petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector, in the Civil Police, Intelligence Branch, and prosecution, and was selected for being sent for training, vide communication dated 28.07.1969. He successfully completed the training, and was placed at S. No. 3 in merit, vide Annexure-1. On such successful completion of training, the petitioner was posted under Deputy Inspector General, Range Jodhpur. It is thereafter alleged, that in October, 1979, qualifying examinations were held for promotion to the post of Inspector in civil police, wherein the petitioner appeared, and qualified. Vide Annexure-2 dated 11.01.1980, the petitioner was declared successful in the said test. Then, vide order dated 14.03.1980 (Annexure-3), the petitioner was promoted as Inspector. It is alleged, that in this order Annexure-3, though it is mentioned that promotion was on ad-hoc basis, but promotion was made after undergoing regular selection process, and was of substantive nature. The petitioner alleges to have joined duties as Inspector on 07.04.1980, and vide order dated 14.04.1985 (Annexure-4), the petitioner was confirmed as such.

3. Since, the dispute is regarding seniority between the petitioner, and the private respondents, the petitioner has detailed facts about private respondents, alleging, that they also applied for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector, alongwith the petitioner, and were also selected for the same, and they also completed the training successfully, alongwith the petitioner. However, in the result of training, they were placed lower in merit then the petitioner. It is alleged, that they also appeared in the qualifying test for the post of Inspector, and were declared successful vide order dated 11.01.1980. Thereupon the Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were promoted to the post of Inspectors vide order dated 14.04.1981 (Annexure-5), on temporary basis, and Respondent No. 3 was promoted vide order dated 110.1981 (Annexure-6). However, they were confirmed on this post, vide order dated 14.04.1985.

4. According to the petitioner, seniority list for the post of Sub-Inspectors was issued, wherein private respondents were shown junior Private respondents did not challenge the promotion of the petitioner as Inspector, which was effected prior to their promotion. Then in the order of confirmation also, the petitioner was placed above them, to which also, they did not object. With this, it is alleged, that a tentative seniority list of the Inspectors was issued in the year 1985, wherein the petitioner was shown senior to the private respondents. Then another tentative seniority list was issued on 20.06.1986 (Annexure-7), wherein again, the petitioner was shown senior. Then final seniority list was issued on 210.1986 (Annexure-8), maintaining the petitioners seniority. However, on 28.05.1988 again, tentative seniority list was issued, being Annexure-9. A look at Annexure-9 shows, that therein also, the petitioner has been shown senior, being at No. 196 while, the private respondents have been shown

at Serial Nos. 210