[2025:RJ-JP:10786] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10588/2009 1. BHAGWAN SINGH S/o Shri Heerasingh aged 59 years R.P.S.,posted as Dy.S.P.L.R.Udaipur Range, Udaipur. 2. SUKHDEV SINGH S/o Shri Mahendra S.Charan, R.P.S.posted as Dy.S.P.Excise Department, Nagaur. 3. Mahavir Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh aged 55 years, R.P.S.,posted as Dy.S.P.L.R.Jaipur Range II, Jaipur. 4. CHAIN SINGH S/o Shri Shivlal R.P.S.posted as Dy.S.P., G.R.P. Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The state of Rajasthan through Home Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Secretary, Department of personnel, Govt. of Raj. Jaipur. 4. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. 5. Gopal Ram S/o Shri Pokarmal R.P.S. (Retd) resident of 273, Guru Jamveshuar Nagar, Gali No.8, Gandhi path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 6. Richpal singh son of Shri Heera Singh, R.P.S., Addl.S.P.A.C.B., Jaipur. 7. Aditya Kumar son of Shri Daya Ram, R.P.S.,posted as Addl.S.P..C.I.D., CB, Jaipur. 8. Pooran Prakash Gaur, R.P.S., Dy.S.P., Jaipur City Police Linos, Jaipur. 9. Shantanu Kumarsingh R.P.S., Addl.S.P., C.I.D., SSB (IB), Jaipur. 10. Marauti Joshi, R.P.S., Addl.S.P.C.I.D.(Vig), PHQ, Jaipur. 11. Vinit Bansal, R.P.S., Addl.S.P. ACB, Jaipur city II Jaipur. 12. Shyam Singh, R.P.S., Addl.S.P.DISCOM, Jodhpur. 13. Gordhan Lal Sakaria R.P.S., Dy.S.P., DISCOM, Jhunjhunu 14. Ratan Singh R.P.S., Circle Officer, Bhinmal Distt. JALORE 15, Ramjilal Chandel, R.P.S., Circle Officer, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh. 16. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:10786] (2 of 5) [CW-10588/2009] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi with Mr. Mina Ram Yadav For Respondent(s) : Ms. Karishma Soni for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC Mr. Manoj Pareek JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the respondents, by which the petitioners have been reverted back to the promotion year 2002-03 from the promotion year 1996-97. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order was passed ex-parte, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, simply on the basis of an order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’) in the case of Madan Singh Rawal, on an appeal filed by himself. Counsel submits that the order passed in the case of the said Madan Singh Rawal, by the Tribunal, has nothing to do with the seniority or promotion of the petitioners. Counsel submits that the order passed in the case of the said Madan Singh Rawal is in personam and the Tribunal, while allowing his Appeal No.830/1997 vide order dated 19.07.1999, has passed a specific order to change his position in the seniority from 358 to 306. Counsel submits that the petitioners were on much higher position in the seniority than the said Madan Singh Rawal. The positions of [2025:RJ-JP:10786] (3 of 5) [CW-10588/2009] the petitioners in the seniority list were at Serial Nos.84, 90, 85 and 88 respectively. Counsel submits that the aforesaid action on the respondents was assailed by the petitioners by way of filing four different Appeals before the Tribunal, however to the dismay of the petitioners, the Tribunal has rejected all the appeals by a common order dated 6.08.2009, holding that the appeal preferred by the petitioners were not maintainable. Counsel submits that the entire action on the part of the respondents has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, as adverse order has been passed against them without affording due opportunity of hearing to them. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the following orders: 1. State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Jagdish Chandra Bajaj and Ors. reported in 2007 (8) SLR 176, passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 2. Sunder Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.8803/2010) dated 27.11.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-State as well as other respondents, opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the impugned order dated 21.12.2005 was passed by the respondents on the basis of the order dated 19.07.1999 passed by the Tribunal in the case of Madan Singh Rawal. Counsel submits that as a consequence thereof, the promotion year of the petitioners [2025:RJ-JP:10786] (4 of 5) [CW-10588/2009] was changed from 1996-97 to 2002-03. Counsel submits that the order passed in the case of Madan Singh Rawal was in personam and not in rem, hence, the respondents have not caused any illegality by passing the order impugned, which requires any interference of this Court and the instant writ petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioners were granted promotion to the post of Inspector and thereafter, their case was considered for promotion to the post of RPS (Junior Scale) on the basis of their merit and position from 84, 90, 85 and 88 in the seniority list against the vacancy year 1996-97 and accordingly, the entire promotion exercise was done. However, one fine morning i.e. on 21.12.2005, the promotion order of the petitioners was reverted from the year 1996-97 to 2002-03. The aforesaid order was passed by the respondents on the basis of the order dated 19.07.1999 passed by the Tribunal in case of Madan Singh Rawal. 6. The perusal of the order passed in the case Madan Singh Rawal indicates that the aforesaid order was confined to him only and his position in the seniority list was treated at serial No.306 in place of 358. By passing the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has not disturbed the seniority of other incumbents. 7. It appears that misinterpreting the order passed by the Tribunal, the order impugned has been passed on 21.12.2005, that too without issuing any notice or providing [2025:RJ-JP:10786] (5 of 5) [CW-10588/2009] any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. It is settled proposition of law that no adverse order can be passed against any person without affording any opportunity of hearing to him and in case, such order is passed, the same amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter is required to be revisited by the respondents, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners, and to pass appropriate orders thereafter. 10. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing direction to the respondents to pass fresh orders, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 11. Needless to observe that the respondents would pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/72