The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of Selection Grade does not involve an element of selection or comparative merit and the withdrawal of the Selection Grade must adhere to principles of natural justice.

1. - On early hearing application moved by the learned counsel for the appellant, we have heard this appeal by allowing the application.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 14.2.2000 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 400/2000 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant at admission stage without issuing notice to the respondents.

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in RAC on 15.1.1965 and he is continuing as a Constable. By the order dated 25.1.1992, the Government of Rajasthan 10 extended the benefit of Selection Scale to all the Government servants in Class IV, Ministerial & Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts and drawing pay in revised Pay Scale 1989, the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 3200/-

4. The petitioner has fulfilled all these conditions. The benefits of selection scale were to be granted at three stages. Firstly, the Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes nine years of service provided that the employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in the existing cadre. Secondly, the Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes eighteen years of service, provided that the employee has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in the existing cadre and the first Selection Grade granted to him was lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. Lastly, the Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one complete twenty seven years of service, provided that the employee has not got three promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first or the second Selection Grade granted to him as the case may be, was lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000.

5. Apparently, as per his appointment dated 15.1.1965, the appellant has completed twenty seven years of service on 15.1.1992 and he was eligible for grant of third Selection Grade. He was allowed the Selection Grade with effect from 15.1.1992 vide order dated 13.11.1992.

6. Meanwhile, the petitioner-appellant was visited with the punishment of censure vide order dated 13.5.1992 (Annexure 5). The order reveals that while he was on night duty along with four other guards on 1.12.1991 at Bairick, a mirror which was purchased in 1974 at the rate of Rs. 48/- was stolen and a departmental enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958) was initiated against him and it was found that the said mirror which was purchased in 1974 at the rate of Rs. 48/- was currently to valued at Rs. 310/-. The show cause notice was given on 29.1.1992 i.e to say after the date third Selection Grade became applicable and after the notification dated 25.1.1992 was issued with direction to recover Rs. 62/- from each of the five guards on duty and a minor punishment of censure was imposed, vide order dated 13.5.1992.

7. This order was very much there when the order dated 13.11.1992 was made. However, vide order dated 10.8.1998 the Selection Grade given to the appellant-petitioner with effect from 15.1.1992 was withdrawn without any notice to the petitioner-appellant and instead of this date it was advanced to 25.1.1993.

8. Aggrieved with the order dated 10.8.1998 an appeal before Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal. Jodhpur was filed by the petitioner-appellant. By its order dated 18.9.1999, the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal rejected the said appeal on the ground that because the appellant has suffered with the punishment of censure, he was not entitled to Selection Grade and it was a clerical mistake which was committed inadvertently and bonafidely while granting him Selection Grade, ignoring the punishment awarded to the appellant petitioner after holding an enq