RTI Figures No Basis for Promotion Vacancies: Raj HC

RTI Figures No Basis for Promotion Claim: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Constables’ Appeal Over 2013-14 Head Constable Vacancies

Tejram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2026:RJ-JP:45486-DB Decided 5 November 2026

Published: 5 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In Tejram v. State of Rajasthan (2026:RJ-JP:45486-DB), the Rajasthan High Court, in a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, dismissed an intra-court appeal by police personnel who claimed promotion from Constable to Head Constable against 376 allegedly unfilled vacancies of 2013-14. It held that figures in an RTI reply are not clear promotional vacancies, accepted the High-Level Committee's fresh year-wise determination of 429 vacancies, and said courts cannot restructure the cadre or order promotions beyond vacancies legally determined (paras 8-16).

Key holdings

An RTI response or an employee's own calculation does not establish clear promotional vacancies; the count turns on the rules, sanctioned strength, roster and service records (paras 8-9).

Courts will not replace a competent committee's year-wise determination of vacancies unless it is arbitrary, ignores relevant factors or breaches the rules (paras 10, 13).

Liberty given to the State to create supernumerary posts confers no enforceable right on any employee to promotion against them (para 12).

Ordering promotions beyond legally determined vacancies would amount to 'judicially restructuring the cadre' (para 14).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The appellants challenged orders of 27 March and 6 April 2023 on the determination of vacancies for promotion from Constable to Head Constable for 2013-14 (para 1). Relying on RTI information, they claimed 802 vacancies, said the 425 notified in January 2018 had not been determined lawfully, and invoked Rule 10(2) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which requires year-wise determination with carry-forward (paras 2, 10). According to the State, the 27 March order was stayed and the Department created supernumerary posts, set up a Review Board and issued a revised list on 4 May 2024 (para 4). A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 30 September 2026 (para 1).

Court's Findings

The Bench held that the right to be considered for promotion is valuable and legally protected, but gives no indefeasible entitlement to promotion against vacancies calculated by the employee or read from an RTI response; vacancies must be fixed under the rules, the sanctioned strength, the roster and service records (para 8). The actual position depends on working strength, earlier promotions, retirements, new posts, personnel promoted but still on feeder posts and excess promotees of earlier years (para 9). The High-Level Committee had made a fresh year-wise determination of 429 vacancies, against 802 claimed, and the Court would not substitute the appellants' calculation without arbitrariness or a breach of the rules (para 10). On the State's figures, 445 Constables were promoted after 18 additional shadow posts were sanctioned, so the claim of 376 unfilled vacancies failed (para 11). Liberty to create supernumerary posts conferred no right to them (para 12). The Court cannot act as a 'cadre-management authority', and no breach of the 1989 Rules or hostile discrimination was shown (paras 13-14).

Legal Principle

The right to be considered for promotion operates within the vacancies determined by the competent authority under the service rules. Figures in an RTI reply are not clear promotional vacancies, and absent arbitrariness, breach of the rules or mala fides, a court will not substitute its own count, order promotions beyond determined vacancies or direct creation of posts (paras 8-14).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The appeal failed on numbers: the Bench accepted the High-Level Committee's year-wise count and the State's figures on promotions made, and held that RTI figures are not clear promotional vacancies (paras 8-11). A similar challenge needs to show a specific vacancy that was 'legally available' under the 1989 Rules and withheld, or arbitrariness in the committee's method (paras 10, 13). Para 4 records that the Single Judge had directed posts equal to the number of petitioners to be kept vacant; the judgment does not say what happens to them now. Compare Rupesh Kumar Meena v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court refused a belated claim to an IPS cadre vacancy.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr. (2008) 1 SCC 683
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 2, 15
Relied on by the Single Judge on judicial restraint in matters of administrative discretion; the appellants said the reliance was misplaced (para 2). The Bench applied its ratio in dismissing the appeal (para 15).
State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1951/2022
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15
Cited by the Bench, with the other decisions in para 15, in holding that the revised exercise and the earlier judicial directions adequately addressed the grievance and that the Single Judge committed no error (para 15).
Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and MD, ONGC & Ors. v. M. George Ravishekharan & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1816/2014
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15
Cited by the Bench, with the other decisions in para 15, in holding that the revised exercise and the earlier judicial directions adequately addressed the grievance and that the Single Judge committed no error (para 15).

View all precedents (4)

Ravikumar Dhansukhal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 432/2023
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15
Cited by the Bench, with the other decisions in para 15, in holding that the revised exercise and the earlier judicial directions adequately addressed the grievance and that the Single Judge committed no error (para 15).