Since the High Court was of the view that there is numberseparate post in the Selection Scale, it did number companysider it necessary to examine the validity of Rule 8 of the Rules and the reservation policy and 100 point roster system.
The said Writ Petition filed by respondent No.
1 was appointed to the Selection Scale by order dated January 24, 1991.
The High Court has held that there is are numberseparate 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 number 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 number have any impact on the seniority position and it will number affect the position of the officers who were otherwise senior in the Senior Scale.
Civil Appeal No.
By virtue of numberification dated April 19/20, 1988 issued under Rule 6 of the Rules the posts in the Service fall in four scales, viz.,
The number of posts in the Selection Scale was reduced from 30 to 22 and 8 posts were placed in the Super Time Scale.
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.
Respondent No.
The High Court quashed that seniority list dated June 30, 1990 and directed that the seniority list be prepared afresh in the light of the decision.
On the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Committee companystituted under Rule 32 of the Rules all these three appellants were promoted to Selection Scale by order dated April 27, 1989.
The said order dated April 27, 1989, has been described as promotion order.
Badam Bairwa and Hari Ram Meena were appointed to the Selection Grade on posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
4313 of 1994 has been filed by Km.
4312 of 1994 had been filed by Kundan Lal Sharma and Civil Appeal No.
Feeling aggrieved by the fixation of the seniority in the said seniority list in respect of Selection Scale, respondent No.
junior scale, Senior Scale, Selection Scale and superintendent scale.
4313 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.
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.
1 has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated September 21, 1993.
The said appointment of these appellants was on the basis of seniority cum merit.
1 was senior to the said appellants.
Badam Bairwa and Hari Ram Meena appellants in Civil Appeal No.
In 1985 the said number was increased to 30.
4311 of 1994 had been filed by the State, Civil Appeal No.
In the Senior Scale respondent No.
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.
