[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Anirudha Singh (2026:Rj-Jd:16398) on 8 April, 2026
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2026:RJ-JD:16398]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5365/2026
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home And Affairs, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Headquarter), Police
Headquarter, Jaipur.
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer.
5. The District Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara, District
Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
Anirudha Singh S/o Shri Mool Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Hari Om Colony, Ajmer Road, Kekari, District Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishanpal Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
08/04/2026
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.
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:59:18 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16398] (2 of 6) [CW-5365/2026]
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
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:59:18 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16398] (3 of 6) [CW-5365/2026]
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
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:59:18 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16398] (4 of 6) [CW-5365/2026]
error of law and jurisdiction by giving a direction to extend
promotional benefits to the respondent from the year 2017-2018.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition
and defended the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal
and submitted that Tribunal has duly appreciated the facts of the
case and appeal has been decided after due analysis of the Rules
as well as material on record. Learned counsel submits that Rule
28 of the Rules of 1989, although, provides for a provision for
special nomination for promotion cadre post, yet, such rule cannot
be treated to be mere concession and as soon as, such rule has
been incorporated in statutory rules, that is required to be
followed in its letter and spirit, and it confers legitimate rights
upon the concerned employee, in case, he fulfills all the conditions
as required under Rule 28. Learned counsel submits that the
petitioner department cannot be allowed to cover its own lethargy
and negligence in not immediately granting out of turn promotion
in view of Rule 28 and further submits that, in case, such a plea of
petitioner is accepted and acknowledged by the Court, it will
frustrate the very object of granting out of turn promotion in the
cases, where the concerned employee has carried out exceptional
work. Learned counsel in view of the above submission prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the record, this Court finds that the controversy
involved in the instant writ petition revolves around Rule 28 of the
Rules of 1989, which is being reproduced as under :
"28. Special nomination for promotion cadre
course.- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule
(1) to (3) of rule 27 above:
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:59:18 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16398] (5 of 6) [CW-5365/2026]
(a) Nomination for promotion cadre course for next
higher rank up to Sub-Inspector in Section-I, II, III and V
and up to Platoon Commander in Section IV and VI of Rule
4 up to 10% of the vacancies to be filled in by promotion
in a particular year, may be made by the Director
General-cum-Inspector General of Police in case of those
who have shown outstanding work in the anti-dacoity,
anti- smuggling or in any special field of Police work,
including performance in Games and Sports, or have put
in not less than 20 years service exclusively as member of
the service and also have exceptionally good and
unblemished record of service with integrity:
Provided that no member of the service shall be
nominated more than once on account of 20 years service
as mentioned above.
(b) The Government may nominate for Promotion
Cadre Course up to 10 percent of the vacancies by
promotion in a particular year from amongst the member
of service holding substantive rank from the rank of Sub-
Inspector/Platoon Commander to
Supervisor/Inspector/Company Commander rank and
from Sub-Inspector/ Supervisor to Inspector on the
recommendation of the Director General-cum-Inspector
General of Police who have shown outstanding work in the
anti-dacoity, anti- smuggling or in any special field of
Police work including performance in games and sports or
have put in not less than 20 years service exclusively as
members of the service and also have exceptionally good
and unblemished record of service with integrity:
Provided that no member of the service shall be
nominated more than once on account of 20 years service
as mentioned above."
11. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule, makes it clear that the
Rule begins with a non-obstante clause and as such, it creates an
exception to the general procedure of promotion contemplated
under the Rules. This Court also finds that it has been mandated
in the Rules that nomination for promotion for next higher rank up
to 10% of the vacancies to be filled in "by promotion in a
particular year" can be made by the competent authority. The
term "promotion in a particular year" does not grant discretion to
the government for promoting the employee as per its
convenience, and rather, it mandates that promotion is to be made
in that particular year, in which, the concerned employee has
carried out exemplary work and for which, recommendation was
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:59:18 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16398] (6 of 6) [CW-5365/2026]
made by its immediate controlling authority. In the instant case,
record shows that it was never pleaded by the petitioners before
the Tribunal that they were not having 10% of the vacancy to be
filled in by out of turn promotion in the year 2017-2018 and
rather, they have attempted to justify their own lethargy by
stating that consideration of initial recommendation made in the
year 2017 took as many as three years in finalization of the same.
The reason assigned qua granting benefits from the year 2019-
2020 cannot be appreciated by this Court. Otherwise, it would
give unguided discretion and choice to the competent authority to
carry out such promotional exercise as per its own whims and in
ignorance of specific provision made under Rule 28 of the Rules of
1989. This Court finds that the Tribunal has committed no mistake
in awarding benefit of promotion to the respondent from the year
2017-2018. Petitioners have utterly failed to point out any
manifest illegality, perversity or infirmity in order dated
24.07.2025. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners
deserves to be dismissed on account of being devoid of any merit
or substance.
12. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
81-AnilKC/-
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:59:18 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
