SBCWP NO.2543/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2543/1997. Shravan Singh Versus The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order:- March 5, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Ms. Kavita Bhati for the petitioner. Shri B.S. Rajawat, Deputy Government Counsel. Shri J.K. Yadav for respondent No.2. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition is directed against the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 20/3/1997 by which, respondent No.2 was declared to have passed the qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Inspector Gr.I against the vacancies of year 1995- 96. 2) Ms.Kavita Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal on the basis of instructions contained in the Standing Order No.12/91 issued by the Director General of Police. By the impugned judgment, learned Tribunal directed that respondent No.2 shall be entitled to 20 marks of rewards and deductions of SBCWP NO.2543/97. 2 his penalties shall be made only for the period when he was holding the post of Sub Inspector or Inspector on ad hoc/officiating basis. Two marks each for major punishment and one mark for minor punishment were deducted. Tribunal held that if that criteria is applied, respondent No.2 would have secured more than 45% marks in Part-II of the qualifying examination and he also secured more than 50% marks in aggregate for both Part-I & Part-II. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.2 was wrongly treated senior to the petitioner because the petitioner passed promotion cadre test for the post of Inspector of Police in March 1989 whereas, respondent No.2 passed the said test in May 1989. According to the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short, “Rules of 1989”), petitioner was liable to be treated as senior on the post of Inspector than respondent No.2. 3) Shri J.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed the writ petition and submitted that Standing Order No.13/91 was never brought to the notice of the Tribunal either by the petitioner or the government. Petitioner and respondent No.2 both were promoted on the post of Inspector of Police. Since respondent No.2 passed the promotion cadre test in earlier point of time than petitioner, therefore respondent No.2 should be treated senior to the petitioner. Rules of 1989 were came into force w.e.f. 1/8/1989 and therefore for SBCWP NO.2543/97. 3 the period prior to that date, predecessor Rules of 1974 would apply. Petitioner being junior to respondent No.2 as Head Constable has always to be treated as junior even after for promotion on the post of Sub Inspector of Police. 4) Shri B.S. Rajawat, learned Deputy Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that learned Tribunal has passed his judgment primarily on Standing Order No.12/91 which provided altogether a different criteria for counting of the marks of rewards and deductions of the marks of penalties imposed. New Standing Order being 13/92 dated 23/3/1992 was passed much before filing of the appeal by respondent No.2 and its decision by the Tribunal on 20/3/1997. Whoever may have been responsible for not bringing the correct Standing Order to the notice of the Tribunal, the resultant position would nevertheless be that judgment rendered by the Tribunal is founded on a Standing Order which stood superimposed by the subsequent Standing Order and therefore judgment cannot be said to be correctly rendered. 5) On the question as to applicability either of Rules of 1974 or of Rules of 1989, I left open as this question has to be adjudicated upon by the learned Tribunal because the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to remand the matter to the Tribunal for its decision afresh. SBCWP NO.2543/97. 4 6) In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 20/3/1997 is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur for deciding it afresh in accordance with law taking into consideration the Standing Order No.13/1992 supra. Tribunal is expected to give priority to this matter at it has remained pending before this Court for last 13 years. It is made clear that since both, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are presently holding the post of Inspector of Police, they would not be liable to be reverted till decision of the Tribunal. Subsequent situation would be governed by the ultimate decision which may be rendered by the Tribunal. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil