JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 08.07.2017 (Annex.8), whereby constables have been sent for Promotion Cadre Course for the post of Head Constable (Motor Transport).

2. Mr. Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioners while apprising the Court about the requisite facts submitted that all the three petitioners were appointed on the post of Constable (Driver) in Jaisalmer by way of common order dated 31.03.1998. Names of petitioner No.1, 2 and 3 were shown at Serial No.3, 20 and 45 with their merit position shown as 2, 11 and 30 respectively in General Category.

3. The petitioners and the candidates who were appointed with the petitioners and many other became eligible for promotion as per the norms fixed for promotion under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1989).

4. The respondents No.3 issued a list of eligible candidates entitled to appear for qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Head Constable (Motor Transport) for the year 2013-14 for Jodhpur Range. The said list was issued in order of their age candidate with earlier date of birth was shown higher in the list while the younger one was shown in the lower position.

5. However, as the petitioners’ date of appointment order was shown as 01.04.1998, they moved representation before the respondents in pursuance whereof their date of appointment was changed to 31.03.1998 and revised seniority numbers were allotted to them.

6. The result of written examination was declared by the respondents on 06.07.2017, showing the names of candidates who have qualified the written examinations. The petitioners names found mention at Sl.No.22, 43 and 23 respectively. Thereafter, vide communication dated 06.07.2017, all the candidates who have cleared the written examination were sent for out-door test and interview; the petitioners’ names were reflected at Sl.No.6, 7 and 13 in the said list.

7. By way of office order dated 08.07.2017, as many as 29 Constables have been sent for promotion cadre course for the post of Head Constable (Motor Transport), but the petitioners were not sent. Feeling aggrieved of such action, the present petition has been preferred.

8. By way of interim order dated 14.07.2017, three posts were ordered to be kept vacant. During the pendency of the present petition, leaving three posts vacant in petitioners’ category (General) by way of order dated 14.12.2017, promotions to the post of Head Constable (Motor Transport) have been made.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents have illegally granted promotion ignoring the seniority of the petitioners and violating the mandate of Rules 23, 29 and 31 of the Rules of 1989. He highlighted that 21 candidates exactly in order of the Roll Numbers have been picked for promotion out of the list that was prepared before the written examinations were held. He argued that all the General Category candidates have been given promotion on the basis of Roll Numbers only which was prepared on the basis of date of birth and not seniority. He argued that such list, if treated as seniority list, is contrary to circular dated 10.01.2008 passed by the Director General of Police, Jaipur.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners navigated the Court through the above referred list and the list of the candidates given promotion and highlighted that even Constables from Jaisalmer District (in the same Range) appointed with the petitioners have been given promotion, ignoring petitioners’ rights who were higher in merit list, when the initial appointment order was issued (being at merit no. General-02, General-11 and General-30). He submitted that names of constables from Jaisalmer District who have been pr