1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3712/2009 (Devendra Yadav Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 7.12.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Hemant Jain,for the petitioner. Mr.I.S.Pareek, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner prayed that respondent be directed to treat the petitioner as a constable(C.P.) for all purposes and to include his name in the seniority list maintained by them relating to Civil Police constables and also to confer all such benefits as are admissible to the constable of C.P. and to allow the petitioner to complete for promotional post of Head Constable (Civil) and to confer such promotion if he is found eligible otherwise also considering him to be constable (C.P.). Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner was given appointment by relaxing the age under the rule which could have been done only he is appointed as constable (driver), therefore, the petitioner is not a constable of Civil Police. 2 The issue has been considered by this Court in (S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO. 187/2000) (By me) in Jai Kumar Bhadu Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. and other three and in view of the above judgement, the petitioner's case is clearly covered by the decision given in above writ petition. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as constable (C.P.) and respondent may hold qualifying examination for the post of Head Constable and petitioner, if is found suitable in accordance with the rules for the post, then he may be offered appointment on the post of Head Constable at appropriate stage. The process can be completed within six months from today. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. Bharti/-