Promotions in the police service must follow year-wise vacancy determinations, and changes in seniority require due process and adherence to established rules.

ORDER

1. All these writ petitions have been preferred by petitioners, challenging the order dated 7.4.2021 whereby and whereunder the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur has conjointly decided as many as 25 appeals filed by respective parties (respondents herein) and following order has been passed:-

'In view of the above the appeal succeeds as under:-

(i) The 29 persons selected in the qualifying test of 2012-13, cannot be rolled over to 2013-14.

(ii) Those who failed in the test in 2012-13, but succeeded in 2013-14 will rank junior to those who succeeded in the test for 2012-13.

(iii) The seniority of the appeal cannot be pushed down to 2013-14, if he qualified the test for 2012-13, he will remain there, he cannot be placed below the private respondents who failed in 2012-13. The vacancy year of 2012-13 will not be changed to 2013-14 for the appellant, to that extent order of 24.02.2019 is set aside.

(iv) If there is no vacancy for the appellant in 2012-13, he will still be there in view of his qualifying the eligibility test for that year and there will now be a shadow/notional/ex-cadre vacancy for that year to accommodate the appellant.

(v) The review of vacancies for 2009-10 to 2015-16 cannot be done in a way as to lump together the vacancies of post years, as to reduce the vacancies after notification, test and PCC. Vacancies are to be determined yearwise as per Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 and DOP circular dated 04.06.2008.

(vi) No pre-ponement of selection year after review and re-determination of vacancies subsequently is permitted under rule, hence, all such pre-ponement is unlawful. Change in seniority or year of selection always requires prior opportunity of hearing to affected persons which was not done in the present case. Similarly, the post ponement of year of selection, in this case for the appellant, is not permitted. He will stand promoted from 2012-13 and order of 24.02.2019 to that extent is nonest.'

2. Heard counsel for both parties at length and perused the record.

3. It appears that from the record that respondents raised their grievance before the Tribunal by way of filing appeals to the effect that a notification No.2582 dated 18.9.2015 for filling up 57 vacancies of Head Constable in District Nagaur of the year 201213 was issued and respondents appeared in the promotion test and were declared eligible, thereafter respondents appeared in qualifying test held on 11.10.2015 and were declared passed in written test, as such respondents were required to accord promotion on the post of Head Constable for the year 2012-13. It was submitted that since later on 29 vacancies of Head Constable, created due to promotion to the post of ASI for the year 2012-13 were deleted from vacancies of Head Constable of the year 201213 and even out of 28 vacancies further promotion of 4 candidates was withdrawn reducing vacancies to 24, therefore, all respondents prayed to accord the promotion on the post of Head Constable from the year 2012-13 as they have cleared the qualifying test of promotion for such year. That apart, respondents were accorded promotion from the year 2013-14 and even other Constables who failed to qualify the promotion test for the year 2012-13 were placed upper in the list of promotion for the year 2013-14, therefore, respondents also prayed for that Constables who had appeared in the qualifying exam of Head Constable for the year 2012-13 but remained failed, cannot be given higher seniority to respondents in the list of promotion for the year 201314 and in this context, the select list No.810 and 811 dated 24.2.2019 of District Nagaur was challenged.

4. Learned Tribunal, in the order dated 7.4.2021, observed that the recruitment and promotion to the post of subordinate police service is governed by the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1989') and as per provisions of Rule 36 and sub-Rule 6 of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989,