Back
1996(1) Supreme 52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of Rajasthan -Appellant
versus
Fateh Chand Soni -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4311 of 1995
[with Civil Appeal Nos. 4312 of 1994 and 4313 of 1994]
Decided on 12.12.1995
Held : The High Court, in our opinion, was not right in holding that promotion can only be to a higher post in the service and appointment to a higher scale of an officer holding the same post does not constitute promotion. "Promotion" thus not only covers advancement to higher position or rank but also implies advancement to a high grade. In service law also the expression "promotion" has been understood in the wider sense and it has been held that "promotion can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post". (See Union of India & Anr. v. S.S. Ranade, 1995(4) SCC 462 at p. 468). (Para 8)
(Rule 28A(7) clause (b) of Proviso) would show that the Rules contemplate that appointment to the post in the Selection Scale is by way of promotion and the High Court was in error in holding that appointment on the Selection Scale does not constitute promotion under the Rules. (Para 11)
Held consequently : It must, therefore, be concluded that appointment to the Selection Scale of an officer in the Senior Scale in the Service constitutes promotion and seniority in the Selection Scale has to be fixed in accordance with Rule 33 of the Rules on the basis of the date of selection and a person selected and appointed as a result of an earlier selection would rank senior to a person who is selected and appointed as a result of a subsequent selection. Since the appellants were selected and appointed on the basis of earlier selection in 1989 while respondent No. 1 was selected and appointed on the basis of a subsequent selection in 1991, the appellants would rank senior to respondent No. 1 in the Selection Scale. The direction given by the High Court for revising the seniority list of the officers in the Selection Scale of the Service on the basis of their seniority in the Senior Scale cannot, therefore, be upheld and has to be set aside. The seniority of officers in the Selection Scale of the service has to be fixed as per Rule 33 on the basis of date of selection. (Para 13)
Held finally : For the reasons aforementioned, the appeals are allowed, the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated September 21, 1993 is set aside and the Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 is dismissed. But in the circumstances there is no order as to costs. (Para 16)
JUDGMENT
S.C. Agrawal, J.-The common question which falls for consideration in these appeals is whether seniority in the Selection Scale in the Rajasthan Police Service (for short the Service ) is to be fixed on the basis of date of appointment to the Selection Scale or on the basis of seniority in the Senior Scale irrespective of the date on which appointment is made to the Selection Scale.
2. Recruitment to the posts in, and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Service is governed by the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). Originally, the Service consisted of posts in the Ordinary Time Scale and Posts in the Senior Scale as indicated in Schedule I to the Rules. In 1966 Schedule I to the Rules was amended and out of the posts in Senior Scale 3 posts were kept for officers drawing pay personally in Selection Grade. In 1974 the number of posts in the Selection Scale was increased to 14 and in 1978 it was increased to 19. In 1985 the said number was increased to 30. By virtue of notification dated April 19/20, 1988 issued under Rule 6 of the Rules the posts in the Service fall in four scales, viz., junior scale, Senior Scale, Selection Scale and superintendent scale. The number of posts in the Selection Scale was reduced from 30 to 22 and 8 posts were placed in the Super Time Scale.
3. Km. Badam Bairwa and Hari Ram Meena (appellants in Civil Appeal No. 4313 of 1994) and Kundan Lal Sharma (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4312 of 1994) and Fateh Chand Soni (respondent No. 1 in the appeals) were all appointed to the service by direct recruitment and were promoted to the Senior Scale. In the Senior Scale respondent No. 1 was senior to the said appellants. On the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Committee constituted under Rule 32 of the Rules all these three appellants were promoted to Selection Scale by order dated April 27, 1989. The said appointment of these appellants was on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The said order dated April 27, 1989, has been described as promotion order. Km. Badam Bairwa and Hari Ram Meena were appointed to the Selection Grade on posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Respondent No. 1 was appointed to the Selection Scale by order dated January 24, 1991. In the Seniority List dated June 30, 1990 seniority in the Selection Scale was fixed on the basis of date of appointment to the Selection Scale. Feeling aggrieved by the fixation of the seniority in the said seniority list in respect of Selection Scale, respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition (C.W.P. No. 3939 of 1991) in the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench wherein he challenged the seniority list dated June 30, 1990 in so far as it related to the seniority in the Selection Scale and sought a direction for maintaining the seniority of the incumbents of the Senior Scale even after the grant of the Selection Scale. Respondent No. 1 also assailed the validity of Rule 8 of the Rules as well as the reservation policy dated February 10, 1975 and the 100 point roster system dated July 9, 1985 as being ultra vires Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
4. The said Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated September 21, 1993. The High Court has held that there is/are no separate post/posts in the Selection Scale and that grant of Selection Scale to certain number of officers working in the Senior Scale so as to avoid stagnation and to keep interest of the officers in the Service intact does not involve promotion in the eye of law and that if, for any reason, a junior officer is granted Selection Scale in preference to his senior, it will not have any impact on the seniority position and it will not affect the position of the officers who were otherwise senior in the Senior Scale. Since the High Court was of the view that there is no separate post in the Selection Scale, it did not consider it necessary to ex
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
