Advocates:
['RA KATTA', 'G A', '', 'VIRENDRA LODHA', 'DR A S KHANGAROT ADD G C', 'B S RAJAWAT DY G C', 'RUPIN KALA']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2553/1998

Ved Kumar son of Shri Durga Ram Jangir, aged 30years, at

present working as Constable(Armourer) NO.154, H.Q.Company,

Xth Battalian, R.A.C, Bikaner

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Inspector General of

Police, R.A.C., Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Thje Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range-Ist, Rajasthan

Armed Constabulary(R.A.C), P.H.Q. and Chairman of Qualifying

Test Board, R.A.C. Range-Ist, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Commandant, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary(R.A.C), Xth

Battalian, R.A.C.(I.R.), Bikaner.

4. Shri Gopal Singh Son of Shri Samman Singh, H.Q.Company,

Head Constable( Armourer), IVth Battalian, R.A.C., Ghat Gate,

Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. R.A.Katta with

Mr. R.K.Paliwal

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. P.S.Naruka on behalf of

Mr. Rupin Kala

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment / Order

14/11/2019

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for giving him

benefit of promotion on the post of Head Constable (Armourer)

along with all consequential benefits from the date promotion has

been given to respondent No.4 – Gopal Singh as he is junior in all

respects to the petitioner. Further, he has also prayed for quashing

promotion of the respondent No.4 - Gopal Singh.

(2 of 4)

[CW-2553/1998]

2.

Brief facts which require consideration are that the petitioner

was at your own request shifted from General Constable to

Armourer vide order dated 13.05.1992 and since then the

petitioner has been working as Armor continuously and has also

been granted the extra allowance for working as Armourer from

time to time. The petitioner’s grievance is that so far as

respondent No.4 – Gopal Singh is concerned, who had only

worked as Armourer and even given allowance from 14.08.1995,

could not have been considered and promoted as Head Constable

Armourer over and above the petitioner. The promotion has been

awarded for the year 1996-97.

3.

In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been stated that

the petitioner was not having the requisite 4 years working

experience on the post of Armourer Constable and was therefore

not eligible to appear for the qualifying test for promotion on the

post of Head Constable. It has been further stated that so far as

respondent No.4 is concerned, he was in service from 29.5.1988

and therefore, had the requisite experience and on the other

hand, the petitioner was appointed as Armourer Constable only on

10.01.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his rejoinder and

denied the said averments stating that he was working as

Armourer since 1992 and so far as the respondent No.4 is

concerned, he had been working from 1989-90 as Constable in

R.A.C. in general duty and had never been assigned duties or the

post of Constable Armourer during the period 1989-90 to

13.08.1995. Thus, was having no experience for promotion to the

post of Constable Armourer.

4.

An additional affidavit was thereafter filed by one Shri Jagan

Nath Goswami working as Adjutant X Battaloin, R.A.C. (I.R.)

(3 of 4)

[CW-2553/1998]

Bikaner, who has stated on oath that while the petitioner was

attached to Armourer Branch vide order dated 13.05.1992, he

completed the Armourer Course on 10.01.1995 and became

entitled for absorption only thereafter.

5.

As regards the respondent No.4 - Gopal Singh is concerned,

it has been stated that respondent No.4 – Gopal Singh was

appointed as Constable in R.A.C. General Branch on 03.12.1984

and was taken in Armourer Branch on 29.05.1988 and was thus

possessing 5 years experience for promotion for the year 1996-

97. No counter to the affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.

6. From the facts as noted in the affidavit filed by the

respondents, it is clear that the petitioner’s claim for promotion to

t