[2025:RJ-JP:44322] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15035/2025 Harwant Singh, S/o Shri Jeet Singh, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of B6 Moti Nagar Vistar Bor Kheda Kota, Rajasthan. Presently Posted As Sub-Inspector, Jhalawar Headquarter Kota City Police Line Kota Range, Rajasthan Police. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Additional Director General Of Police, Police Recruitment And Promotion Board, Rajasthan Police, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur 3. The Inspector General Of Police, Cid (Cb), Rajasthan, Jaipur Chairman Of The Selection Board For Police Inspector (Civil Police) Post Year 2022-23 4. The Superintendent Of Police, (Cid-Cb) Rajasthan, Jaipur (Member Secretary Selection Board), Police Crime Branch, Rajasthan, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 5. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 6. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15039/2025 Satyapal Pareek, S/o Shri Ghanshyam Pareek, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Triveni Water Point, Oil Factory, Baran, Rajasthan. Presently Posted Sub-Inspector, Headquarters Kota Rural Police Line Kota Range, Rajasthan Police. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Additional Director General Of Police, Police [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (2 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] Recruitment And Promotion Board, Rajasthan Police, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 3. The Inspector General Of Police, Cid (Cb), Rajasthan, Jaipur, Chairman Of The Selection Board For Police Inspector (Civil Police) Post Year 2022-23 4. The Superintendent Of Police, (Cid-Cb), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Member Secretary Selection Board), Police Crime Branch, Rajasthan, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 5. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 6. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15041/2025 1. Ramswaroop Rathore S/o Shri Laxmi Chand Rathore, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Chari Ghat Road, Baran (Raj.) Presently Sub Inspector, Thana Sadar Jahalawar, Rajasthan. 2. Ravindra Kumar S/o Ummed Chand, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of 2A12, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Kota Presently Posted As Si In Sp Office Kota City. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Additional Director General Of Police, Police Recruitment And Promotion Board, Rajasthan Police, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 3. The Inspector General Of Police, Cid (Cb), Rajasthan, Jaipur, Chairman Of The Selection Board For Police Inspector (Civil Police) Post Year 2022-23. 4. The Superintendent Of Police (Cid-Cb), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Member Secretary Selection Board), Police Crime Branch, Rajasthan, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 5. The Director General Of Police, Training Rajasthan Police, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 6. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (3 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] Secretariat, Jaipur. 7. Sachin Sharma S/o Shambhu Dayal, Sub Inspector Jaipur Range, Residence Not Known, C/o Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur 8. Suresh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal, Sub Inspector Commissionarate Jodhpur, Residence Not Known, C/o Commissioner Of Police, Jodhpur 9. Manvendra Singh Bhati S/o Nahr Singh Bhati, Sub Inspector Ajmer Range, Residence Not Known, C/o Inspector General Of Police, Ajmer Range 10. Imran Khan Samma S/o Liyakat Ali Samma, Sub Inspector Bikaner Range, Residence Not Known, C/o Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range 11. Lokpal Singh S/o Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, Sub Inspector Ajmer Range, Residence Not Known, C/o Inspector General Of Police, Ajmer Range 12. Ravindra Sain S/o Bharu Lal, Sub Inspector Udaipur Range, Residence Not Known, C/o Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range 13. Mukesh Kumar S/o Bameshvr Lal, Sub Inspector Ajmer Range, Residence Not Known, C/o Inspector General Of Police, Ajmer Range 14. Lalita Kumari D/o Lacha Ram, Sub Inspector Jodhpur Range, Residence Not Known, C/o Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15042/2025 Govind Singh S/o Shri Nand Singh, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Transit Hostel, Police Line, Kota City, Rajasthan. Presently Posted As Sub-Inspector, Rajasthan Police, District Tonk (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Additional Director General Of Police, Police Recruitment And Promotion Board, Rajasthan Police, [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (4 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 3. The Inspector General Of Police, Cid (Cb), Rajasthan, Jaipur, Chairman Of The Selection Board For Police Inspector (Civil Police) Post Year 2022-23 4. The Superintendent Of Police, (Cid-Cb), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Member Secretary Selection Board), Police Crime Branch, Rajasthan, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 5. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 6. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Preeti Sharma Ms. Priya Khushlani Mr. Upendra Singh Gurjar Mr. Rayan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan and Mr. Parth Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/10/2025 1. These four writ petitions are filed by petitioners for implementation of policy circulars dated 04.06.2008, issued by DOP and further guideline dated 07.05.2021 and also the provisions under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 1989’), in relation to promotion from post of Sub-Inspector. 2. The contentions in case of Harwant Singh, Satyapal Pareek and Govind Singh are that the recommendation with regard to their promotion be opened (disclosed) and sealed cover process shall not be adopted as they were eligible on date of [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (5 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] creation of vacancy i.e. 01.04.2022 for DPC for year 2022- 23. 3. The writ petition by Ram Swaroop and Ravindra is filed to exclude only ineligible candidates, who were considered and recommended despite not having minimum experience in service. 4. These writ petitions are preferred by petitioners with following prayer: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15035/2025:- “Quash and set aside the decision of the respondent to keep the case of the petitioner in sealed cover, direct the respondents to open the sealed cover of the case of the petitioner and implement its outcome, and may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to include the petitioner in the selection list issued vide the impugned order-Øekad dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure-P1) and also include the petitioner in list of candidates allotted for PCC in the True copy of impugned order-Øekad dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure-P2) to let the petitioner undergo the Promotion cadre course starting from date 23.09.2025.” S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15039/2025:- “Quash and set aside the decision of the respondents to keep the case of the petitioner in sealed cover, direct the respondents to open the sealed cover of the case of the petitioner and implement its outcome, and may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to include the [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (6 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] petitioner in the selection list dated 19.09.2025 and let the petitioner undergo the Promotion cadre course starting from date 23.09.2025” S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15041/2025:- “i). This Hon'ble Court may kindly quash and set aside the Letter number 2768 dated 17.07.2025 issued by the Additional Director General Recruitment and Promotion Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan by which the ineligible proforma respondents were illegally allowed to be included provisionally in the selection process/examinations conducted for the vacancy of 2022-23 for Police Inspector (Civil Police) ii) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to set aside and quash all the subsequent orders number 4496 dated 14.08.2025, Order number 4918 dated 04.09.2025, Order number 4957 dated 10.09.2025, Order number 4655 dated 15.09.2025, Order number 4737 dated 19.09.2025, Order number 2976 dated 19.09.2025 to the extent they include the ineligible proforma respondents. iii) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to set aside and quash Order number 4655 dated 15.09.2025, Order number 4737 dated 19.09.2025, Order number 2975 dated 19.09.2025 to the extent they dropped the names of the petitioners. iv) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to include the petitioners in the final Select List published vide Order number 4737 dated 19.09.2025, and to also include the petitioners in Order number 2975 dated [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (7 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] 19.09.2025 and further direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to undergo PCC” S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15042/2025:- “Quash and set aside the decision of the respondents to keep the case of the petitioner in sealed cover, direct the respondents to open the sealed cover of the case of the petitioner and implement its outcome, and may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to include the petitioner in the selection list dated 19.09.2025 and let the petitioner undergo the Promotion cadre course starting from date 23.09.2025” Submissions:- 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the Rules of 1989 are applicable for post of promotion from Sub-Inspector to Police Inspector and petitioners are liable to be considered for promotion and recommendation for Promotion Cadre Course (PCC). She further submitted that the promotion process of the petitioners is guided by circulars of DOP dated 04.06.2008 and guidelines dated 10.08.2001 and 04.07.2021 and the petitioners have placed heavy reliance upon the process as suggested therein. She further referred point No.12 of the circular dated 04.06.2008 for consideration of pending departmental proceedings or criminal case and impact upon the promotion. She further submitted that after filing police report or complaint against any public servant, a criminal case is said to be pending only when cognizance of offence is taken by the Court. [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (8 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] 6. She also submitted that selection of petitioner Harwant Singh was kept in a sealed cover only on the basis of departmental charge memo dated 25.03.2023 which was issued after date is in question as petitioner was eligible for consideration of vacancies arising for year 2022-23 but in final list of the candidates recommended for PCC, the name of petitioner Harwant Singh was omitted. 7. Learned counsel for Satyapal further submitted that a criminal case is instituted against the petitioner wherein a charge-sheet dated 08.08.2023 is drawn but no order of cognizance has been passed in such matter whereas departmental charge memo is issued on 09.01.2024 but the vacancy was for year 2022-23 and the crucial date 01.04.2022 has to be considered for the purpose for promotion but still the name of present petitioner was dropped from PCC. 8. She further referred the case of Govind Singh and submitted that petitioner has qualified written examination and further he was declared successful in out board examination as well but a sealed cover procedure was adopted in respect of present petitioner. She also submitted that PCC is scheduled to commence but the petitioner was not selected finally for the PCC. She also submitted that in a case registered against the petitioner, prosecution sanction was refused and it has no material bearing upon consideration of case of petitioner, therefore petitioner is entitled for promotion and also recommendation to PCC. [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (9 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] 9. Learned counsel for petitioners Ramswaroop and Ravindra Kumar submitted that respondent Nos. 7 to 14 are non- eligible candidates but they have been selected by the respondents therefore they are required to be excluded from select list. She further submitted that rule provides that on date of consideration for promotion, it is necessary to render minimum service of 5 years as Sub-Inspector. 10. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned AAG on behalf of respondents and he submitted that respondents have considered the case of present petitioner Harwant Singh, Satyapal Pareek and Govind Singh and considering pendency of departmental enquiry or criminal case, they were finally not recommended for promotion. He further submitted that sealed cover procedure is provided under the rules and same is explained by DOP and respondents have adopted the process as prescribed under the rules. He further submitted that there is no violation of any provision of rule to consider the case of petitioners, therefore the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. He also objected direct filing of these writ petitions and availability of alternative remedy. 11. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned AAG and perused the material placed on record. 12. Learned AAG has submitted that the issue raised herein pertains to promotion and issue of promotion are required to be considered by the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal. He also submitted that direct invocation of [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (10 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] jurisdiction of this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is impermissible. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976, in particular, Section 2(f) and submitted that there is no exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and under Section 10 of the Act only jurisdiction of Civil Court is excluded. She further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. : (1998) 8 SCC 1, M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officder-cum- Assessing Authority and Ors. : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 and submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court by filing writ petition is available where the violation of fundamental right is alleged or where there is violation of principle of natural justice. 14. It is also settled proposition of law that where a prayer is made for enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution and allegation of violation of the principles of natural justice then a writ petition is maintainable and can be entertained. Similarly, where there is a pure legal question or urgency or exceptional hardship then a writ petition is also entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. In case of M/S Radha Krishan Industries vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh : (2021) SCC Online SC 334, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered principle of law as enunciated in case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (11 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] Registrar of Trade Mark 1998 (8) SCC 1 and Harbans Lal Sahania Vs. India Oil Corporation Limited (2000) 2 SCC 107. A similar issue was considered in case of Godrej Sara Lee Limited Vs. Excise Taxation Officer (supra). The counsel has also enclosed the pendency in the Service Tribunal along with the procedure for considering the matter by the Tribunal. Even the regular hearing is somewhat effected due to non-availability of Bench and we have taken note of the problems faced by the litigants in matters before the Tribunal. 16. The legal position as mentioned hereinabove clearly indicate that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable and considering grounds raised by the petitioners, the writ petition can be entertained. The law over the time is well settled that despite availability of alternative remedy, a writ petition is maintainable but it should be entertained only in appropriate cases where the facts of the case warrants interference by this Court. Therefore, considering the facts the writ petition(s) cannot be dismissed only on the ground that the jurisdiction of Tribunal is available to be approached first before filing the writ petition. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15041/2025:- 17. This writ petition is filed by two Sub-Inspectors Ramswaroop and Ravindra Kumar alleging that respondent Nos. 7 to 14 are ineligible but despite that they were finally selected and recommended for PCC. The petitioners have referred order dated 28.07.2025 which was issued pursuant to orders in SB [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (12 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] CWP No.6344/2025 and 5433/2025. It is apparent on record that pursuant to said orders, representations were considered by the recruitment and promotion board and they were recommended for consideration. Similarly, petitioners have referred order dated 14.08.2025 regarding qualification examination for promotion from Sub-Inspector to Police Inspector (CP) for the years 2022-2023. 18. The petitioners Ramswaroop and Ravindra Kumar, who have challenged inclusion of respondent Nos. 7 to 14 in the list of candidates on the ground that they do not possess mandatory experience of five years on the post of Sub Inspector and they are ineligible. The material submitted along with petition and also during the course of arguments three persons Imran Khan (Respondent No.10), Manvendra Singh Bhati (Respondent No.9) and Sachin Sharma (Respondent No.7) have approached this Court and on basis of order passed in their writ petition(s), they were considered by the respondents. As regard to respondent Nos.8 and 11 to 14 are concerned, their inclusion is also challenged by the petitioners. The Petitioner No.1/Ramswaroop has mentioned that he is at Sr. No.662 whereas respondent No.8 is at 663 whereas Ravindra Kumar is at Sr. No.667 and the proforma respondents were at lower rank in merit than the present petitioners. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989 which indicates that for consideration for the post of Police Inspector, it is necessary that incumbent should render minimum five years of service as Sub [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (13 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] Inspector, if he is a graduate. There is no provision under the Rules for relaxation in minimum service of five years as Sub Inspector for consideration. The respondents are under an obligation not only to give effect to the provisions of Rules but also duty bound to ensure that rules are being applied in the stricto-sensu while considering the eligibility of any candidate. The respondents are under an obligation to ensure as well that a non-eligible candidate would not get a promotion. The list of candidates referred by learned counsel for the petitioners who were not eligible in accordance with Rule 26 is referred as under:- S.N. Sr. No. Name Fathers Name Cat. Date of first appointment Experience as on 01.04.2022 348 621 Sachin Sharma Shambhu Dayal Gen 10.09.2018 3 years 6 months 22 days 350 623 Suresh Kumar Mohan Lal OBC 22.09.2017 4 years 6 months 10 days 351 624 Manvendra Singh Bhati Nahr Singh Bhati Gen 31.03.2018 4 years 0 months 1 days 352 625 Imran Khan Samma Liyakat Ali Samma OBC 31.10.2018 3 years 5 months 1 days 354 627 Lokpal Singh Ghanshyam Singh Rathore Gen 21.10.2018 3 years 5 months 11 days 355 628 Ravindra Sain Bharu Lal Gen 31.08.2018 3 years 5 months 1 days 357 630 Mukesh Kumar Rameshwar Lal OBC 22.07.2019 2 years 8 months 10 days 583 865 Lalita Kumari Lacha Ram ST 23.09.2017 4 years 6 months 9 days 20. Since we have not issued any notice to respondent No.7 to 14 and by the time, the writ petition will be considered on merit after notice and reply, it would be too late therefore it [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (14 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] is appropriate to dispose of this writ petition to given an opportunity to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the respondents and in case if the details mentioned hereinabove is found as correct and if respondent Nos. 7 to 14 are not eligible in accordance with Rules then the respondents are duty bound to give effect to the Rules, and withdraw their recommendation for promotions. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NOS.15035/2025, 15039/2025 AND 15042/2025:- 21. These writ petitions Raise a common question and the only question before us is implementation of circular dated 04.06.2008 and guidance in letter dated 07.05.2021 as issued by DoP and Home Department. The issue before us relates to DPC for the year 2022-23 and the date of eligibility is 01.04.2022. The contentions of the petitioners is that they were eligible for recommendation to PCC on 01.04.2022 if their promotion is considered on 01.04.2022 but due to subsequent or otherwise institution of proceedings either by ACB or by the Department, their recommendation was kept in sealed cover, as per recommendation by the promotion Board. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred point No.12 of DOP circular dated 04.06.2008, which is applicable in the instant case. The counsel has also referred another letter dated 07.05.2021 regarding a clarification issued by the Home Department to respondent No.2 on 07.05.2021 making it clear that for consideration of promotion for year 2016-17, if no proceeding is pending on 01.04.2016 then the [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (15 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] procedure for sealed envelope cannot be adopted. Learned counsel has further referred circular dated 10.08.2001 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur which also clarified that any punishment which has been inflicted in connection with any criminal proceedings / departmental proceedings which were initiated after 1st of April of the year to which the vacancies belong should be disregarded by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). 23. Here in this case, the material on record indicates that a departmental charge-Memo has been issued to Harwant Singh on 25.03.2025 but not on 01.04.2022. Similarly a criminal case against Stayapal Pareek was registered as FIR No.287/2019 but charge-sheet has been filed on 08.08.2023 and on date of consideration of promotion on 01.4.2022 it was pending for investigation and there was no charge-sheet against him. The petitioner has claimed benefit under the circulars dated 04.06.2008, 10.08.2001 and 04.07.2021. Similarly, FIR No.156/2021 was registered by ACB against Govind Singh but a prosecution sanction was denied by the competent authority on 15.10.2022. After denial of prosecution sanction, no Court can proceed in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Otherwise also on 01.04.2022, the petitioner Govind Singh was eligible and required to be considered for promotion. 24. The legal principle over the point is well settled that a sealed cover procedure is not applicable:- [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (16 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] (i) where neither any pendency nor any issuance of notice of charge-Memo in a disciplinary or criminal proceeding on date of consideration by DPC; (ii) where the employee is not under suspension; (iii) where only FIR is registered or preliminary enquiry is going on in the charges against the person. 25. It is settled procedure that unless a charge-sheet is filed in a criminal case and a cognizance is taken or a charge memo is issued for departmental enquiry, sealed cover procedure can be applied. 26. Having considered the material submitted by the petitioners, it is apparent on record that the petitioners Harwant Singh, Satyapal Pareek and Govind Singh are required to be considered by DPC for the purpose of consideration of promotion, if nothing is pending as per circulars, as referred hereinabove, against them on 01.04.2022, in accordance with the circulars of DOP as referred hereinabove. The rationale behind the guidelines in the circular is to prevent potential in-justice or arbitrariness, therefore, it is appropriate to direct the respondents to consider and place the case of the present petitioners before the DPC so as to consider their case for opening of sealed cover in accordance with procedure as explained by DOP. 27. In view of discussion made hereinabove, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15041/2025 is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation pointing out selection of lessor eligible candidates and recommendation to PCC. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 are under an obligation to [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (17 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] give an effect to the Rule meant for promotion in respect of minimum criteria. If respondents find that ineligible candidates are selected and recommended, then an appropriate action be initiated against them but in case the petitioners are having locus and requisite experience then their case be considered for recommendation to PCC. In case of deviation, a detailed and reasoned order be passed in respect of petitioners and also about the eligibility of the candidates for which a challenge is made in this writ petition. Needless to say that the petitioners have a liberty to re- approach the Court by filing a fresh petition. 28. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15035/2025 (Harwant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15039/2025 (Satyapal Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15042/2025 (Govind Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) are partly allowed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of petitioners, in accordance with circular dated 04.06.2008 and clarification dated 07.05.2021 by placing the matter before the Promotion Board and decide the issue of recommendation to PCC, if petitioners are otherwise eligible, but without keeping in sealed cover. In case of any deviation, the respondents are under an obligation to pass a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the petitioners. The petitioners will have a liberty to re-approach this Court, by filing a fresh petition. 29. Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of, in all matters. [2025:RJ-JP:44322] (18 of 18) [CW-15035/2025] 30. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /154-157