Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ikhlas Ahmed vs The State Of Rajasthan on 14 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:3101]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 894/2025
Mubarik Khan S/o Sh. Razak Khan, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 02, Pendka Road, Mev Mohalla, District
Bharatpur C/o Sushil Solanki, R/o Paota C Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, (Headquarter), Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Kota Range, Kota.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Kota.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.896/2025, 900/2025, 967/2025.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati for
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
14/01/2025
1. Vide this common order, the aforesaid these petitions are
being disposed of together as not only the facts involved are
similar, but even the issue therein is akin.
2. Illustratively, for the sake of brevity, recitals are being taken
from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 894/2025. The petitioner therein
seeks quashing of an order dated 11.01.2025 (Annex.-2), vide
which he has been transferred from Kota Rural to Bundi (out of
district).
3. Heard.
[2025:RJ-JD:3101] (2 of 3) [CW-894/2025]
4. A perusal of the official documents appended with the writ
petition reflects that the petitioners have been concededly serving
as Constables and have been 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."
5. Apart from the aforesaid, it transpires that a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide judgment rendered in Subhash Chandra
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10353/2024 held as under:
"(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.
[2025:RJ-JD:3101] (3 of 3) [CW-894/2025]
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."
5.1. The judgment supra has since attained finality as the intra-
Court appeal has also been dismissed, I see no reason why benefit
of same be not accorded to petitioners herein.
5.2. The case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the
judgment ibid. As an upshot, the writ petitions are allowed.
Impugned order 11.01.2025 (Annex.-2) qua the petitioners is set
aside with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders, in
accordance with law by transferring them within the same District,
if administrative exigency so warrants.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
123-DhananjayS/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
