[2025:RJ-JP:21117] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18519/2024 1. State of Rajasthan, through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Director General of Police, Lal Kothi, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur. 4. Superintendent of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Petitioners/Non-Appellants Versus Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Age 43 Years, Presently Working As Assistant Sub- Inspector, District Banswara, Rajasthan. Resident Of Karwa Khash, Tehsil-Aspur, District Doongarpur, Employee Id - RJBN19990. ----Respondent/Appellant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari assisted by Mr. Rohit Tiwari Mr. P.S. Tanwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 20/05/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No.1109/2022 whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent, a direction has been issued to extend him special promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (hereinafter referred to as “ASI”) against the vacancies for the year 2017-2018. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents filed an appeal against the petitioners/non-appellants (for short “the petitioners”) stating therein that vide order dated 11.09.2017, he was given special promotion from the post of Constable to the post of Head Constable against the vacancy for the year 2017- [2025:RJ-JP:21117] (2 of 6) [CW-18519/2024] 2018 but, having passed the departmental examination later on, he was regularly promoted as the Head Constable against the vacancy for the year 2016-2017 rendering the benefit of special promotion nugatory. It was further averred that in view thereof, he was entitled for special promotion to the next promotional post, i.e., the ASI though, against the vacancies available for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and/or 2019-20 but, he was extended this benefit for the year 2021-2022 ignoring his candidature for special promotion for the earlier years. It was, therefore, prayed that he may be extended special promotion against the vacancies for the year 2016-17. The petitioners in their joint reply submitted that no vacancy of ASI was available for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 as the same were already filled in through regular promotion. However, it was admitted that certain reserved category vacancies were available for these years. It was further averred that the respondent himself has given a No Objection Certificate in terms of circular dated 19.05.2021 that he is agreeable for special promotion in the financial year in which vacancies are available. Dismissal of the appeal, was therefore, prayed for. The Tribunal, vide its order impugned dated 19.06.2023, allowed the appeal in terms as stated hereinabove. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners made two-fold submissions. His first submission is that under Rule 28(a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for brevity “the Rules of 1989”), it is absolute discretion of the Director General of Police to extend the special promotion or not and no direction could have been issued by the Tribunal to [2025:RJ-JP:21117] (3 of 6) [CW-18519/2024] exercise this discretion in favour of the respondent. Further, referring to and relying upon Clause 11 of the Circular dated 19.05.2021 issued by the Director General of Police, learned counsel submits that since, the respondent was extended regular promotion to the post of Head Constable vide order dated 24.06.2020, his case for special promotion to the post of ASI could not have been considered prior to the year 2020. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned dated 19.06.2023 be quashed and set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, supporting the findings recorded by the Tribunal, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. The Tribunal has, after appreciating the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties and the material available on record, held that there were as many as thirteen vacancies of ASI under ST category available for promotion against the year 2017-18 and as per Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989, the special nomination for promotional cadre course to the next higher rank is available up to 10% of the vacancies to be filled in by promotion of the particular year irrespective of the category of the vacancies and therefore, the respondent was entitled for special promotion against the thirteen vacancies available for the year 2017-18. The aforesaid factual as well as legal proposition propounded and applied by the Tribunal is not assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court. It is not disputed by him that the special promotion can be extended against 10% of the [2025:RJ-JP:21117] (4 of 6) [CW-18519/2024] available vacancies irrespective of the nature of vacancies, i.e., reserved or unreserved. In view thereof, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned dated 19.06.2023 passed by the Tribunal. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners based on the language employed in Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989 is concerned, no doubt, none can claim special promotion as a matter of right but, it is not open for the petitioners to deny an eligible candidate special promotion on their whims. It appears that this contention has been raised for the sake of arguments only without a shred of substance in it. The petitioners have, already exercising their discretion under Rule 28 (a) of the Rules of 1989 in favour of the respondent, extended him special promotion to the post of Head Constable but, the supervening regular promotion to that post necessitated fresh consideration. The petitioners have, as a matter of fact, considered the respondent for special promotion and recommended his promotion to the post of ASI against the vacancies for the year 2021-22 only for the reason that for earlier years, no vacancy for the post of ASI existed which has been found to be factually incorrect. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court fails to comprehend logic of this argument. Even otherwise, a discretionary power vested in a State functionary is never unbridled or arbitrary but, is always guided by settled norms and practices which are just, fair and reasonable. His another limb of submissions, based on the Clause 11 of the circular dated 19.05.2021 which provides that if after special promotion, so promoted employee is extended regular promotion, [2025:RJ-JP:21117] (5 of 6) [CW-18519/2024] his case would be reconsidered for special promotion and since, in the instant case, the respondent was extended regular promotion to the post of Head Constable vide order dated 24.06.2020, his case for special promotion to the post of ASI could not have been considered for the vacancies prior to year 2020-21, is wholly misconceived and misplaced. The Clause 11 of the circular dated 19.05.2021 does not postulate so; rather it comes to the aid of the respondent’s case inasmuch as after extending him benefit of special promotion to the post of Head Constable, he was regularly promoted to this post nullifying the effect of the special promotion which re-entitled him for special promotion to the next higher promotional post, i.e., the post of ASI. Therefore, his regular promotion to the post of Head Constable for the vacancies against the year 2016-17 vide order dated 24.06.2020 did not come in way of the respondent for claiming the special promotion to the post of ASI against the vacancies for the year 2017-18. It is trite law that it is not the date of promotion order but, the year of promotion which is relevant for the consequential benefits. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. On last date of hearing, i.e., 13.05.2025, this Court passed the following order:- “After arguing at length and failing to satisfy this Court that order impugned dated 19.06.2023 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur suffers from any error so as to warrant interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction vide [2025:RJ-JP:21117] (6 of 6) [CW-18519/2024] Article 227 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted time to complete his instructions. List the matter on 20.05.2025 at top of the list as prayed.” Clear intention behind the aforesaid order was to afford the petitioners an opportunity to rethink over their decision to pursue this frivolous litigation. But, today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has instructions to address the Court on merit again which obviously are the same submissions which were considered on the earlier occasion but, did not find favour with this Court. This Court often comes across of the cases wherein, orders passed by the statutory Tribunals against the Government are assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with impunity on superficial and superfluous grounds and the Government officials show scant respect to them. This callous and lackadaisical attitude of the State functionaries results into not only burden on the public exchequer, but also wastage of the precious time of the Court which is already overburdened with litigation. In view thereof, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed with a cost which is quantified as Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly this civil writ petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs.50,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioners with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of four weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/15