TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Super Time Scale posts in the Rajasthan Administrative Service were the highest posts in the service. (ii) If so, whether promotion to those posts had to be made on the basis of merit alone or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and merit in the proportion of 50:50.
Issue (i): Whether the Super Time Scale posts in the Rajasthan Administrative Service were the highest posts in the service.
Analysis: The expression "highest" was not separately defined in the rules and had to be understood in its ordinary sense and in the context of the scheme of the service rules. Rule 6 left the strength and structure of posts to be determined by the Government from time to time. Reading Rule 28-B with Rule 32, the terms "higher post" and "highest post" were treated as relative expressions within the same service structure. The amendments and the subsequent notification identifying the Super Time Scale posts showed that the concept of highest posts was already embedded in the rules and only required identification and operationalisation.
Conclusion: The Super Time Scale posts were the highest posts in the service.
Issue (ii): If so, whether promotion to those posts had to be made on the basis of merit alone or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and merit in the proportion of 50:50.
Analysis: Rule 28-B(7) specifically provided that selection for promotion to the highest post or posts in the State Service shall always be made on the basis of merit alone. Rule 32 had to be construed harmoniously with Rule 28-B, and its reference to the same principles of selection could not dilute the specific mandate governing the highest posts. The Government's contemporaneous interpretation and the explanatory mechanism for resolving doubt as to categorisation also supported the merit-only criterion for the highest posts.
Conclusion: Promotion to the Super Time Scale posts had to be made on the basis of merit alone and not on the 50:50 basis of seniority-cum-merit and merit.
Final Conclusion: The rules were interpreted to treat the Super Time Scale as the highest level in the service, attracting merit-only selection, and the challenge to that interpretation failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where service rules reserve promotion to the highest post or posts for merit alone, later identification of the highest post within a pre-existing service structure is valid, and the specific merit-only rule prevails over the general promotion criteria.
TaxTMI 
