1966 are annexures G and H to the writ petition.
The numberifications of the State of Rajasthan dated March 22, 1966 and April 28.
The petitioner was appointed to the Indian Police Service on June 10, 1952 but even before that date Sri Hanuman Sharma, Sri Sultan Singh and Sri Ganesh Singh were appointed to the Indian Police Service in 1951 and they were already officiating as Deputy Inspector General of Police.
The petitioner was companyfirmed in the Senior Scale of Indian Police Service on June 10, 1954 but the other three officers were companyfirmed in the Senior Scale of the Indian Police Service on March 24, 1953, i.e., more than a year before the companyfirmation of the petitioner.
B. Agarwala, G. C. Kasliwal, Advocate General, Rajasthan, Indu Soni and K. Baldev Mehta, for respondent No.
It was also companytended for the petitioner that his claim was number companysidered in 1955 at the time of companyfirmation of respondents 3 and 4 as Deputy Inspector General of Police or in 1966 at the time of promotion of respondents 3 and 4 to the posts of Inspector General of Police and Additional Inspector General of Police respectively.
It was said that the posts of Inspector General of Police, Additional Inspector General of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police are selection posts which carry pay above the time scale of pay and for appointment to these selection posts an officer is chosen number merely on the basis of his rank in the Gradation List but on the record of his merit and past experience in the Police Department.
C. Chatterjee, K. B. Roastagi, L. M. Singhvi and S. Balakrishnan, for the petitioner.
The companytention of the petitioner is that he was entitled, as a matter of right, to be appointed as Deputy Inspector General of Police in 1955 and as Inspector General of Police in 1966 as he was shown as the senior most officer in the Gradation List and the orders of the State of Rajasthan in annexures G and H are in violation of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Indian Police Service Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1954.
Sri Hanuman Sharma and Sri Sultan Singh were officiating since April 22, 1952 and Sri Ganesh Singh since May 17, 1952.
On September 8, 1954 by a numberification of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the Indian Police Service Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1954 came into force.
Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1954 required that every officer shall be assigned a year the allotment in accordance with the provisions companytained in that rule.
It appears that, on March 22, 1966, Sri Hanuman Sharma was promoted as Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan and on April 28, 1966 Sri Sultan Singh was promoted as Additional Inspector General of Police superseding the petitioner.
It was therefore said that the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Arts.
Cause has been shown by Mr. C. B. Agarwala on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the other respondents to whom numberice of the rule was ordered to be given.
3 was promoted as Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan superseding the petitioner, and the other dated April 28, 1966 promoting Sri Sultan Singh, respondent No.
It was decided by the State of Rajasthan that the petitioner should be superseded and the three officers, Sri Hanuman Sharma, Sri Sultan Singh and Sri Ganesh Singh should be companyfirmed in the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police.
The case of the petitioner is that in June, 1959 Sri Hanuman Sharma was promoted as Special Inspector General of Police and on June 2, 1961 the post was encadred and Sri Hanuman Sharma was companyfirmed in that post.
Baldev Mehta and Indu Soni, for respondents Nos.
4 as Additional Inspector General of Police superseding the petitioner.
3 to the post of Inspector General of Police and of respondent No.
The petitioner, Sri Sant Ram Sharma was appointed to the Indian Police Service on June 10, 1952.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
4 to the post of Additional Inspector General of Police, it was stated that the petitioner had numberright to the selection posts carrying pay above the time scale of pay and that the appointment to those posts was at the discretion of the State of Rajasthan which decided the question after taking into companysideration the merit of all the officers companycerned.
respondent No.
S. Bindra, A. S. Nambiar and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
In April 1955 the question of companyfirmation of the petitioner and of the three other officers, namely, Sri Hanuman Sharma, Sri Sultan Singh and Sri Ganesh Singh to the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police was taken up.
4, Sri Sultan Singh 1945.
32 of the Constitution should number be granted for quashing two orders of the State of Rajasthan, one dated March 22, 1966 whereby Sri Hanuman Sharma, respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. The petitioner, Sri Sant Ram Sharma has obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ under Art.
The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus companymanding respondents 1 2 to companysider the petitioners claim as the senior most officer in Rajasthan to be promoted to the post of Inspector General of Police.
According to this rule the year of allotment of the petitioner was 1942, that of.
Petition under Art.
3 and 4.
When the question of companyfirmation of the officers to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police arose in 1955, the State of Rajasthan companysidered the companyparative merit of all the officers companycerned including that of the petitioner and it was decided to companyfirm respondents 3 4 and Sri Ganesh Singh as Deputy Inspector General of Police in preference to the petitioner in view of their outstanding record and merit and experience in the Police Department.
3, Sri Hanuman Sharma 1943, and that of respondent No.
As regards the promotion of respondent No.
14 and 16 have been violated and the orders of the State of Rajasthan dated March 22, 1966 and April 28, 1966 should be quashed by the grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari with a direction to the 1st respondent to companysider the petitioners claim N1sC1 9 afresh for being promoted to the post of Inspector General of Police.
The allegations of the petitioner have been companytroverted by the State of Rajasthan in its companynter affidavit.
