HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16616/2010 Kailash Choudhary (Belt No.151) aged 40 years son of Shri Dhan Singh, resident of 4/5 RPA Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Inspector General of Police CID (Intellegence) Rajasthan, Jaipur (Chairman Selection Board) 3. Superintendent of Police Intelligence Jaipur (Member Secretary Selection Board). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16617/2010 Sajjan Singh (Belt No.1020) son of Shri Bhimla Ram aged about 37 years, resident of Plot No.52, Jai Dadi Nagar, Kalwar Road (Takia ki Chowki) Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Inspector General of Police CID (Intellegence) Rajasthan, Jaipur (Chairman Selection Board) 3. Superintendent of Police Intelligence Jaipur (Member Secretary Selection Board). ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16618/2010 Prabhu Dayal (Belt No.30) aged 37 years son of Shri Lalji Ram, resident of Gram post Moonpur (Lal Kothi) Tehsil Rajgarh District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Inspector General of Police CID (Intellegence) (2 of 4) [CW-16616/2010] Rajasthan, Jaipur (Chairman Selection Board) 3. Superintendent of Police Intelligence Jaipur (Member Secretary Selection Board). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chouhdary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/03/2025 1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all these three petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, argument have been heard together and all these petitions are decided by this common order. 2. For convenience the facts and the prayer mentioned in SB Civil Writ Petition No.16616/2010 has been taken into consideration: a). By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to revise the selection list and select the petitioner prior to the person junior to him in merit for PCC cadre and give him promotion on the post of Head Constable against the vacancies for the Year 2009-2010 prior to the person junior to him. b). By an appropriate writ order or direction in the alternative if respondents made promotion as per Order dated 25.10.2010, then in that eventuality the respondents may be directed to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Head Constable against the vacancies for the Year 2009-2010 (3 of 4) [CW-16616/2010] at par with the persons junior to him with all consequential service benefits. c). Cost of the writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner. d). Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. By way of filing these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking directions for their promotion to the post of Head Constable against the vacancy year 2009-10. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents apprised this Court that as per rules, all candidates are supposed to secure at least 50% of qualifying marks i.e. 137.5 marks and all the three petitioners have failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks. Counsel submits that the petitioner-Kailash Choudhary has secured 134 marks and petitioner-Sajjan Singh has secured 136.5 marks and petitioner-Prabhu Dayal has secured 130 marks. Counsel submits that all the three petitioners have failed to secure the required qualifying marks, hence, their cases were not considered for promotion. 5. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the fact that all the three petitioners have failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 137.5, hence, they are not entitled to seek any direction for their promotion to the post of Head Constable against the vacancy year 2009-10, thus, this Court finds no merit and substance in these petition. (4 of 4) [CW-16616/2010] 6. Accordingly, all these three writ petitions stand dismissed. The stay applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/202-204