STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus FATEH CHAND SONI

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 12-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
FATEH CHAND SONI 
DECEMBER 12, 1995 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Police Serv.ce Rules, 1954: Rules 28(A), 33-Appointment 
to the Selection Scale constitute promotion-Seniority in the selection scale 
as per Rule 33 if promotion from senior scate to selection scale. 
Words & Phrases: 'Promote'-Promotion-Meaning of 
A 
B 
c 
The appellants-officers and the respondent were all appointed to the 
Rajasthan Police service by direct recruitment and were promoted to the 
senior scale. !n the senior scale respondent was senior to the said appel-
lants. On tl;e basis of recommendations made by the Selection Committee D 
constituted under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, all appel-
lants were protnoted to selection scale on the basis of seniority cum merit 
by promotion order date 27.4.1989. Two of the appellants were appointed 
t~ the selection grade against posts reserved for Scheduled, castes and 
scheduled Tribes. The respondent was appointed t.o the selection scale by E 
order dated 24.1.1991. As per the seniority list dated 30.6.1990, seniority in 
the selection scale was fixed on the basis of date of appointment to the 
selection scale. 
Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging 
the seniority list and sought a direction for maintaining the seniority of the F 
incumbents of Senior Scale even after the grant of the Selection Scale. He 
had also assailed the validity of Rule 8 of the Rules as well as the reserva-
tion policy dated 10.2.1975 and the 100 point roster system dated 9.7.1985 
as being ultra vires Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The High 
Court held that there is/are no separate post/posts in the Selection Scale G 
and that grant of selection scale to certain number of officers working in 
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. The High 
Court quashed the seniority list dated 30.6.1990. 
Hence, these appeals by the State as well as by the their officers. 
H 
559 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. Promotion means advancement or preferment in honour, 
dignity, rank or grade it not only covers advancement to higher position or 
rank but also implies advancement to a higher grade and can be either to a 
higher pay scale or to a higher post. (564-B] 
2. Appointment to the Selection Scale is made by selection based on 
merit and seniority cum merit in accordance with Rule 28(a) of the Rules. 
(566-E] 
3. Appointment to the Selection Scale of an officer in the Senior Scale 
C in the Service constitutes promotion and seniority in the Selection Scale has 
to be fixed in accordance with 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 sub-
sequent selection. The seniority of officers in the Selection Scale of the Ser-
vice has to be fixed as per Rule 33 based on date of selection. (566-F, 567-A] 
D 
E 
F 
4. The High Court erred in holding that appointment on the Selection 
Scale does not constitute promotion under the Rules. (566-B] 
Union of India & anr. v.S.S. Ranade, (1995) 4 S.C.C 462 &Lalit Mohan 
Deb v. Union of India, (1973) 3 S.C.C 862, referred to. 
Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1984) 2 
SCR 703, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4311 of 
1995 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.1993 of the Rajasthan 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 3939 of 1991. 
R. Mohan, K.S. Bhati, Ms. Kusum, M.K. Singh, H.G.R. Khattana, 
Randhir Jain, S.S. Mishra, B.N. Sioghvi, V.K. Garg, R.K. Siogh, Arunesh-
G war Gupta, Ms. S. Janani, S.K. Jaio, A.P. Dharnija, Ms. Indu Malhotra and 
Dania Pradhan for the appeariog parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. : The common question which falls for con-
H sideration io these appeals is whether seniority io the Selection Scale io the 
'
STATE v. F.C. SONI [S.C. AGRA WAL, J.] 
561 
Rajasthan Police Service (for short 'the Service') is to be fixed on the basis A 
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. 
Recruitment to the posts in, and conditions of service of persons B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.