Order

1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition to assail the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 24.07.2025, passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred as the ‘Tribunal’), whereby, directions have been given, by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, to the petitioner department for granting special promotion to the respondent against the vacancies of the year 2017-2018 instead of 2019-2020.

2. Brief facts of the matter are that the respondent was initially appointed on the post of Constable in Police Department on 06.09.2008, and since, he was involved in uprooting organized crime and arrest of dacoits, therefore, he was given a gallantry award along with a recommendation for out of turn promotion in the light of Rule 28 of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Rules of 1989’).

3. Recommendation was considered by the appointing authority and looking to the exemplary services of the respondent, out of turn promotion was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.10.2020 against the vacancies for the year 2019-2020.

4. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal with the contention that as the initial recommendation was made for out of turn promotion of the respondent in the year 2017, therefore, it should have been granted to him against vacancy for the year 2017-2018, however, ignoring the claim of the respondent against the vacancy for the year 2017-2018, he has been granted same promotion against the subsequent vacancy year 2019-2020, which has caused grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the respondent.

5. The petitioner-department filed reply to the appeal and submitted that although, initially recommendation was made for granting out of turn promotion to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.07.2017, yet, such recommendation was subject to approval by the duly constituted Committee. The Committee examined the entire record and finally vide letter dated 04.09.2019 recommendation was made to promote the respondent under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989. Soon thereafter, the order dated 15.10.2020 was issued by the department for promoting the respondent against the vacancy in the year 2019-2020.

6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, learned Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent vide order dated 24.07.2025, and directed to extend the benefit of promotion from vacancy year 2017-2018.

7. While assailing the order dated 24.07.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has utterly failed to appreciate facts of the case, material available on record and law prevailing at the relevant time. Order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal is beyond the scope of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989. Learned counsel submits that promotion under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989 is not a matter of right and is rather an outcome of Motivational Scheme of the government. Learned counsel submits that initial recommendation in favour of an employee does not create any vested right upon the employee to get promotion immediately, only on issuance of such initial recommendation. Such initial recommendation is always subject to further consideration by the Committee as well as the Appointing Authority. For that purpose, entire record is meticulously examined by the Committee and in that process, if some time has expired in making final recommendation, out of turn promotion can be made only thereafter, and the concerned employee has got no right whatsoever to claim promotion from a back date, i.e., from the date of initial recommendation.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that learned Tribunal has utterly failed to appreciate the scope and extent of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989 and has committed serious error of law and jurisdiction by giving a direction to extend promotional be