Order (Oral)

14/02/2025

1. Petitioner herein seeks quashing of the order dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.1), vide which he was transferred from Chittorgarh to Banswara (out of district) and order dated 28.01.2025 (Annex.-2), vide which he was relieved pursuant to his transfer order.

2. Heard.

3. A perusal of the official documents appended with the writ petition reflects that the petitioner, concededly serving as Constable(GD), was transferred from one district to another. Being so, on the face of it, the same is in violation of the Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which reads as under:-

“Eligibility for Promotion- (1) Except in the case of specialized / technical post to be specified from time to time by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, the persons enumerated in column 5 of Section I, II and IV of the Schedule-I holding substantive rank, shall be eligible in the case of Constable on District/Unit, Battalion basis, Head Constable / Assistant Sub-Inspector on District basis, and posts specified in column-2, of the Schedule-I subject to their possessing such minimum qualification and experience as are specified in Column 6 of the Schedule-I.

Provided that for the purpose of this Rule, Promotions from the rank of Constables to that of Head Constables and from Head Constables to that of Sub-Inspectors, shall be made on unit / District and for promotions from the rank of Head Constables to that of Platoon Commanders on District basis in RAC, “District” shall mean State basis.”

4. Apart from the aforesaid, it transpires that a Coordinate Bench of this Court seized of similar controversy rendered judgment in Subhash Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10353/2024 which has since attained finality as the intra-Court appeal was dismissed. Relevant extract of the judgment ibid is as below:-

“(32) This Court is of the firm view that in the face of substantive provision, namely, Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989, which provides that seniority of Constable and Head-Constable shall be maintained district- wise and the seniority of Assistant Sub-Inspector will be maintained range-wise, no administrative order much less order dated 10.08.2021, issued by the Director General of Police, can protect or affect their seniority. Petitioners’ seniority cannot be maintained de-hors Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989.

(33) This Court has consistently held that inter-district transfers of Constables and Head-Constables and inter-range transfers of ASI’s are contrary to Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989. it will not be out of place to reproduce adjudication made by this Court in the case of Smt. Premlata (supra), which reads thus:-

“A perusal of the said Rules shows that the persons mentioned in column 5 of Sections I, II and IV of the Schedule-I holding substantive rank shall be eligible in the case of Constables on District / Unit, Battalion basis, which means that the concerned Constable shall be promoted as and when his/her turn comes in the district to which he/she has been transferred.

Mr. Jai Singh, Dy. Superintended of Police, Traffic, Bikaner is present in the Court and confirms the said fact. Thus, this Court fails to understand as to how the petitioner does not stand to suffer, in case she is transferred from Bikaner to Jhunjhunu because, even though, the seniority is maintained from the date of the appointment, she will be promoted only in case the person senior to her in Jhunjhunu has been promoted though his initial appointment of the present petitioner. Thus, the transfer order which places the petitioner in disadvantage vis-a-vis for the purpose of promotion cannot be sustained.”

5. The case of petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment ibid. As an upshot, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 15.01.2025 and 28.01.2025 are set aside qua the petitioner, with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh transfer orders in case administrative exigency so warrants, in accordance