Abdul Rehman Vs State

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to the orders dated 19.04.2006 (Annexure-6) and 24.06.2006 (Annexure-7), whereby his promotion avenues from the post of Constable to the Head Constable was deferred for a period of five years in view of the provisions of notification dated 20.06.2001 and 08.04.2003 read with Circular dated 13.08.2004, wherein it has been provided that promotions avenues of the employees would be deferred for a period of five years in case they have more than two children.

[2025:RJ-JP:47207]

[CW-9224/2006]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been illegally deprived from promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable, though he is eligible for promotion.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in view of Sub-Rule 1A of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as, ‘the Rules of 1989’), case of the petitioner for promotion, cannot be considered for a period of five years in view of the fact that the petitioner was having more than two children.

Considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material made available on record.

Vide Notification dated 20.06.2001, Sub-Rule 1A was added to the Rules of 1989. As per Sub-Rule 1A of the Rules of 1989, no person shall be considered for promotion for five recruitment years from the date on which his promotion becomes due, if he/she has more than two children on or after 01.06.2002.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is having more than two children on the first date of June 2002.

The further amendment was made in Sub-Rule 1A of the Rules of 1989 and five recruitment years were substituted by three recruitment years, vide Notification dated 19.09.2017.

Since it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was having more than two children at the relevant time and, therefore, in view of the specific provisions provided under Sub-Rule 1A of the Rules, 1989, the impugned

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:47207]

[CW-9224/2006]

orders under challenge in the present petition suffers no illegality, hence, the petition is devoid of merit.