Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sabir Khan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 August, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:34475]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8169/2025
1. Sabir Khan S/o Warish Khan, Aged About 51 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 1, Daudasar Road Village Dhankoli,
Deedwana-Kuchaman.
2. Dr. Gautam Dotasara S/o Shri Harlal Singh Dotsara, Aged
About 46 Years, Resident Of Tilak Nagar, Bikaner.
3. Manoj Kumar Mund S/o Shiv Kumar Mund, Aged About 48
Years, Resident Of Near Hanuman Temple, Tilak Nagar,
Bikaner.
4. Rameshwari D/o Daluram, Aged About 48 Years, 104
Plam Grove Apartment, Chitranjam Marg C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Diretor General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Director General Of Police (Recuritment And
Promotion Board), Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia with
Mr. Aashish Kumar Jakhar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati and
Mr. Shailendra Kumar for
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, GC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
05/08/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers:
"a) Quash and set aside the impugned circular dated
28.01.2025 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent
[2025:RJ-JD:34475] (2 of 7) [CW-8169/2025]
department to the extent it mandates a fresh qualifying
examination for the petitioners;
b) Direct the respondents to fix the seniority of
Petitioner No.1 from the vacancy year 2011-12 and
Petitioners No. 2 to 4 from the vacancy year 2013-14
respectively, treating them as duly promoted in those
respective years in light disqualification of the withdrawal
of vide notification dated 16.03.2023 (Annexure-3);
c) Direct the respondents to consider and revise all
consequential benefits including fixation of pay, seniority,
and promotion as per the revised dates;
d) Pass any other or further orders which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
e) the petitioners may kindly be allowed the cost of writ
petition."
2. The petitioners are the people who had initially been
appointed on the post of 'Sub-Inspector' and further promoted as
Inspectors in the year 2014-15/2018-19. Although the petitioners
were entitled for promotion qua the vacancies of year 2011-
12/2013-14 but were not granted promotion qua the vacancies of
the said years because of notification dated 20.06.2001 which
provided that no person shall be considered for promotion for five
recruitment years from the date on which his promotion became
due, if he/she had more than two children on or after 01.06.2002.
However, the said notification was amended vide notification dated
19.09.2017 whereby the period of five years was substituted by
three years.
3. In view of notification dated 19.09.2017, the petitioners,
who were entitled for promotion qua the vacancies of year 2011-
12/2013-14, were granted promotion qua vacancies of year 2014-
15/2018-19.
[2025:RJ-JD:34475] (3 of 7) [CW-8169/2025]
4. However, subsequently vide notification dated 16.03.2023
(Annex.-3), the earlier provision was substituted as under:
"The person who had not been considered for
promotion upto the year 2019-20 because he/she
had more than two children on or after 1 June 2002
shall be considered for promotion from the date on
which his/her promotion was due and on such
promotion his/her pay shall be refixed at the pay
which he/she would have drawn but no arrear shall
be paid and if any person who has more than two
children on or after 1 June 2002 and his promotion
becomes due in the year 2020-21 or thereafter shall
be considered for promotion from the date on which
his/her promotion becomes due and his/her pay
shall be fixed for the promotional post, but he/she
shall be entitled for annual increment notionally for
three subsequent years and after such three years
he/she shall be allowed actual benefits of such
increments, however no arrears shall be paid for
such notional increments. There shall be no
consequential effect on subsequent promotions of
the person promoted as per provisions of this sub-
rule. The person already promoted shall not be
revered due to implementation of this sub-rule"
5. As a consequence of the above amendment/substitution, the
department issued communication dated 28.01.2025 (Annex.-4)
whereby it was informed that the promotions to the incumbents
who had earlier not been considered because of circulars dated
20.06.2001 and 19.02.2017, would now be considered for
promotion qua the years they were actually entitled. Therefore,
list of such candidates was issued vide communication dated
28.01.2025. However, the said communication also reflected that
all the said incumbents would be under an obligation to participate
in the qualification test.
6. It is the above condition/clause of which the petitioners are
aggrieved.
[2025:RJ-JD:34475] (4 of 7) [CW-8169/2025]
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the
petitioners were accorded promotion in the year 2014-15/2018-
19, they underwent the process in terms of Rule 27 of the
Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules of 1989') and hence, they cannot be
under an obligation to again qualify the test. The benefit
whatsoever to be given to the petitioners now, is by virtue of
notification dated 16.03.2023 and hence, the condition of
qualifying the examination again cannot be imposed on them.
8. In support of his submissions, counsel relied upon the Co-
ordinate Bench judgments of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.6789/2025; Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. (decided on 21.07.2025) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3162/2014; D.G.P. of Police & Anr. vs. Sanjiv Chauhan
& Anr. (decided on 26.05.2015).
9. Per contra counsel for the respondent-Department submitted
that Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989 specifically provides that once
the vacancies for promotions are determined, the Department is
under an obligation to undertake the process for selection which
includes the qualifying test too. Although the petitioners were
promoted qua the subsequent years, they are now a part of the
list to be promoted qua the years 2011-12 and 2013-14
respectively. Therefore, they would definitely be required to
qualify the test in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that notification dated
16.03.2023 has already been assailed by some other incumbents
in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13218/2024; Santosh Kumar
Mahawar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. wherein Hon'ble the
[2025:RJ-JD:34475] (5 of 7) [CW-8169/2025]
Division Bench has observed that the promotions, if any, made in
pursuance to notification dated 16.03.2023 shall remain subject to
final outcome of the said petition.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that even otherwise the
petitioners have not furnished the requisite affidavits and
therefore too, the department could not proceed till date.
12. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.
13. It is an admitted fact that because of circular dated
20.06.2001 (amended on 19.02.2017), although the petitioners
were entitled to be considered qua the vacancies of year 2011-
12/2013-14 they were considered after a period of three years. At
that point of time, the petitioners participated in and even
qualified the examination conducted in terms of Rule 27 of the
Rules of 1989. It is only after they being successful in the
qualification examination that they were accorded promotion for
the vacancies of year 2014-15/2018-19.
14. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners are now
sought to be considered qua the year of 2011-12/2013-14
because of the amended notification issued by the Government
itself. As per the amended provision, the benefits of promotion are
even otherwise to be granted notionally.
15. In view of the above admitted facts, the entitlement of the
petitioners for promotion qua the vacancies of year 2011-12/
2013-14, is not disputed. When once the petitioners had cleared
the requisite examination for promotion, it cannot be held that
they would again be required to qualify the same for the purpose
of promotion to be granted with effect from the date which they
were actually entitled, and that too, notionally.
[2025:RJ-JD:34475] (6 of 7) [CW-8169/2025]
16. This Court is of the specific opinion that essentials as
required in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989 had already
been complied with by the petitioners when they were granted
promotion qua the year 2014-15/2018-19. The same essentials
cannot definitely be required to be complied with again and that
too, when benefits are to be granted notionally. The decision to
grant promotion with effect from the date the incumbents were
actually entitled, is of the department itself. The same cannot lay
any obligation on the incumbents who are sought to be granted
the benefit in terms of the amended provision. Further, Rule 27 of
the Rules of 1989 also does not provide for the qualifying
examination to be cleared by any incumbent, twice.
17. In Om Prakash (supra) too, the Court while dealing with a
similar situation, observed that the incumbents therein would not
be required to clear the qualification examination for the second
time. Similar view was taken in D.G.P. of Police (supra).
18. In view of the above analysis, order/communication/circular
dated 28.01.2025 does deserve interference to the extent it lays
an obligation on the incumbents to appear for the qualifying
examination. The condition to that extent is hereby quashed and
set aside. It is hereby held that the petitioners would not be under
an obligation to again clear the qualifying examination in terms of
Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989; and they would be entitled to be
considered for promotion qua the vacancies of the years they were
actually entitled, without the condition of them clearing the
qualifying examination.
19. So far as the observation of Hon'ble the Division bench in
Santosh Kumar Mahawar (supra) is concerned firstly, herein the
[2025:RJ-JD:34475] (7 of 7) [CW-8169/2025]
entitlement of the petitioners is not in issue. Secondly, the present
petitioners would also definitely be governed by the decision of the
same, as and when made.
20. With the above observations and directions, writ petition
stands disposed of.
21. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
298-JatinS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
