SH. RAM PRASAD ETC.ETC versus SH. D.K. VIJAY AND ORS. ETC. ETC

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 16-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SH. RAM PRASAD ETC.ETC 
v. 
'I 
SH. D.K. VIJA Y AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK, 
S.P. KURDUKAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954/Rajasthan Administrative Service 
Rules, 1954: 
Rules 8, 9, 27. 27A and 281 Rules, 8 and 33-Reservation in 
Promotion-Amendment Circular dated 1.4.1997 providing that on promotion 
of a general candidate to a senior scale after the promotion to that scale of 
D his junior roaster point promotee, the general candidate will regain his 
seniority-Held, the Circulars are consistent with the principle of seniority 
of reserved candidates as laid down in Ajit Singh I and Ajit Singh II-With 
regard to 'prospectivity' of sabharwal, Ajit Singh II will apply-Indian Police 
Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955-lndian Police Service 
E (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. 
F 
The general category officers of the Rajasthan Police Service (R.P.S.) 
filed writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court seeking modification of 
seniority list as regards their seniority vis-a-vis the reserved candidates; 
and the general category officers of the Rajasthan Administrative Service 
(R.A.S.) filed writ petitions challenging the mode of implementation of Rules 
8 and 33 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. The writ 
petitions were partly allowed, so f~r as the seniority of reserved candidates 
at the promotional level was concerned, by following the judgment in Ajit 
Singh /*, and promotions in excess of 28% quota were quashed. The High 
Court, following the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Singh Soni 
G ll996J t sec 562, delivered on 12.12.1995 held that the placement of 
Additional Superintendents of Police (senior scale) as Additional 
Superintendents (Selection scale) amounted to promotion so as to give the 
reserved candidates the benefit of reservation by way of roster points. The 
High Court, following Ajit Singh /*, also held that the reserved candidates 
H on promotion at roster points cannot count their seniority from the date of 
576 
RAM PRASAD v. D.K. VI.TAY 
577 
such promotion and the general candidates senior to them at the lower level, A 
on promotion would become senior to them. Aggrieved, the general candidates, 
the affected reserved candidates as also the State of Rajasthan filed the 
present appeals. 
It was contended for the general candidates that appointment from 
senior scale to selection scale was not a promotion; that Fateh Singh Soni B 
required reconsideration; and that, in any event, Fateh Singh Soni was 
decided on 12.12.1995 and at that time the Court was not dealing with the 
issue of seniority of the roster point promotees, and, therefore, after Ajit 
Singh I it became necessary for the High Court to modify the seniority list 
as accepted in Fateh Singh Soni. 
C 
The State of Rajasthan, while accepting the principles laid down in Ajit 
Singh I, contended that seniority lists accepted in Fateh Singh Soni by this 
Court could not have been altered by the High Court. It was also contended 
on behalf of the State Government that between 1.3.1996 (when Ajit Singh 
I was decided) and 1.4.1997 certain further promotions of r~served candidates D 
had taken place and the prospectivity of Ajit Singh I be postponed from 
1.3. J 996 to 1.4.1997 so as to prevent reversions of such roster point 
promotees. The reserved candidates contended that Ajit Singh I* was not 
correctly decided. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. There is a general Amendment dated 1.4.1997 made to the 
Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 and Rajasthan Administrative Service 
Rules, 1954 which directs that roster-point promotees shall not be given 
such seniority. Rajasthan Police Service Rules are pari materia with Rajasthan 
Administrate Service Rules. The said circulars are consistent with the F 
principle that has been laid down in regard to seniority of reserved candidates 
in Ajit Singh I* and Ajit Singh II** [581-G-D] 
*Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 715 and State of 
Rajasthan v. Fateh Singh Soni, [1996) 1 SCC 562, affirmed. 
G 
**Ajit Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors., [1999) Suppl 2 SCR, 
relied on. 
2. It cannot be said that appointment from senior scale to selection 
scale is not a promotion and that Fateh Singh Soni requires reconsideration. H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. . 
A The reserved candidat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.