TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether appointment to the Selection Scale in the Rajasthan Police Service constituted promotion, and if so, how seniority in that scale was to be determined; (ii) whether the challenge to reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotion could be sustained.
Issue (i): Whether appointment to the Selection Scale in the Rajasthan Police Service constituted promotion, and if so, how seniority in that scale was to be determined.
Analysis: The scheme of the Rules, especially Rule 28(A), showed that appointment to the Selection Scale was made by selection on the basis of merit or seniority-cum-merit and was part of the promotional hierarchy. Rule 33 specifically provided that seniority in higher posts or categories was to be determined from the date of regular selection. The Selection Scale was a separate scale and not merely an extension of the Senior Scale, so the grant of that scale could not be treated as leaving seniority unaffected.
Conclusion: Appointment to the Selection Scale constituted promotion, and seniority in that scale had to be fixed on the basis of the date of selection under Rule 33. The appellants were therefore senior to the respondent in the Selection Scale.
Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotion could be sustained.
Analysis: The challenge based on Article 16(4) and the decision in Indira Sawhney could not succeed because the existing reservation provisions were permitted to continue for the relevant period. The further objection regarding reservation against vacancies rather than cadre posts was not open on the facts, and the actions in question had been taken before the prospective directions in R.K. Sabharwal.
Conclusion: The challenge to reservation in promotion was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's view on seniority in the Selection Scale was set aside, the writ petition was dismissed, and the seniority list was to be governed by the date of selection under the applicable service rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a service rule provides for selection to a higher scale by merit or seniority-cum-merit, appointment to that scale is a promotion and seniority in that scale is governed by the rule prescribing seniority from the date of regular selection; an earlier selection ranks senior to a later selection.
TaxTMI 
