1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3851/2008 Kailash Chandra Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 4.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. S.D. Goswami, for the petitioner/s. Mr. I.S. Pareek, Govt. Counsel, for the respondents. ... The petitioner, a Constable with the Rajasthan Police, faced process of selection for appointment by way of promotion to the post of Head Constable. As per Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 after determination of vacancies to be filled by promotion, the Board is required to prepare correct and complete list containing names not exceeding three times of the number of vacancies, out of the senior most eligible members of service who have passed Part-I of the qualifying examination specified in Rule 29 by obtaining 40 marks in Parade Practical and outdoor test and 40% marks in written test with 45 % marks in aggregate. The persons placed in list prepared are to be interviewed and a list then is to be prepared as per sub rule 1 of Rule 27, containing names of suitable candidates in order of seniority who have secured 45% marks and qualified Part-2 with 50% aggregate of total marks of the qualifying examination. The petitioner secured 47.25% marks in Part-I, 2 40.83% in Part-II and 60% marks in interview, as such, his total percentile was 46.54. The respondents did not include him in the list of selected candidates, as he was having aggregate marks less than 50%. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1989, the requirement of 45% marks in aggregate is achieved by him, as such he should have been placed in the select list. It is also stated that the respondents have not included four marks in Part –II examination relating to petitioners participation in Six Days Crime Investigation and Human Behaviour Course Batch No.25/2001, and if those four marks would have been included the petitioner would have been selected for promotion as Head Constable. Per contra stand of the respondents is that the petitioner secured marks less than 50% in aggregate and as such he was rightly not included in the approved list of selected incumbents. Heard counsel for the parties. Rule 27 of the Rules of 1989 prescribes procedure for selection. According to the provision aforesaid the qualifying marks for Part-I qualifying examination is 40% in Parade, Practical and other out door test and 40% marks in written test and in all 45% marks in aggregate. The petitioner secured 47.25 marks in Part –I and as such he was having 45 % marks aggregate, however, as per sub- rule 2 of Rule 27 further requirement is that the incumbent under 3 consideration for promotion is required to have 45% marks in qualifying examination and 50% aggregate of total marks of the qualifying examination Part-I and Part-II. The petitioner was certainly not having 50% marks in aggregate of Part-I, II and Interviews and as such he failed to qualify the test concerned. It is also admitted position that on inclusion of the document relating to the petitioners participation in Six Days Crime Investigation and Human Behaviour Course Batch No.25/2001, he would have secured 4 marks and even by including the 4 marks the petitioner would not have acquired 50% aggregate marks, as such, in that eventuality too, he was not entitled for placement in selection list. In view of the discussion made above I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '