The cancellation of an examination and the order for a fresh examination can be justified if irregularities are found. No person has a right to claim promotion, but only a right to be considered for promotion. The discretion available to the authority in charge of promotions must be exercised by a proper application of mind. The inclusion of candidates who were earlier left out in a fresh promotion exercise is valid in certain circumstances, such as when their eligibility has been established.

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Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The application for intervention was moved but the same is dismissed as withdrawn leaving it open for the applicant to take up his cause independently.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. 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