JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals arise out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated April 25, 1974 by which he accepted the writ petition filed by the respondent Gopeshwar Bhatt and held that the order of the State Government dated April 12, 1973 regarding the substantive appointments to the selection grade of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to 'as the service') was bad in law and struck down the same qua Gopeshwar Bhatt, who was the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. Really speaking the controversy in the present case is an off shoot of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others 1971 (2) SC 452 . 3. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the appellants in appeal No. 84 of 1974 as well as the respondents Nos. 5 to 9 are members of the Service which was initially constituted in the year 1950 and the rules governing the conditions of the members of the Service were framed in 1954 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and are known as the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Under the Rules the Service has three cadres of pay namely the ordinary June Scale, the Senior scale and the Selection scale. The appointments to the Senior Scale end the Selection Scale are made by promotion on the basis of merit and seniority-cum-merit from the Ordinary lime Scale and the Senior Scale respectively according to the Rules initially the promotions were made only on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. However, in the year 1965 an amendment was made in the Rules introducing the system of making promotion to the higher grade in the Service on the basis of merit alone in addition to the already existing system of making promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the year 1965 the proportion of vacancies to the filled in by promotion on the basis of merit and on the basis of Seniority cum merit was 1:1, but on August 26, 1966 the Rules were further amended and the proportion of promotions to be made on the basis of merit and seniority cum merit was modified as 1:2. On August 27, 1966 the Chief Secretary to the State Government issued a circular which introduced a making system in the matter of selection, promotion and appointment to the Service. Promotion to the senior scale of the Service were made on the basis of the aforesaid making formula in respect of the seniority-cum-ream quota by the order dated December 7, 1966 while the promotions in the respect of the merit quota were made by the order of the State Government dated January 4, 1967. The validity of these promotions as well as the legality and validity of the circular dated August 27, 1966 containing the marking formula on the basis of which they were made, were challenged by Guman Singh a member of the Service in this Court by means of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that sub-rule 21 of Rule 28-B of the Rules was bad in law and struck down the circular dated August 27, 1966 holding be same to be repugnant to Rules as well as the promotions made under the order dated January 4, 1967 on the basis of the aforesaid circular. 4. The State and the promoters filed special appeals which were allowed by the Division Bench by its order dated January 20, 1970 which held that sub-rule (2) of Rule 28-B was valid as also the circular as well as the promotions made in accordance therewith Soon after the aforesaid decision of this court, the State Government passed an order on January 22, 1970 confirming the persons who were appointed by promotion to the Senior Scale of the service by the orders dated December 7, 1966 and January 4, 1967. 5. Guman Singh filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 5. Guman Singh filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter Motilal Kakkar, one of the appellants, before us also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the circular dated August 11, 1966 as also the promotions made by the orders dated December 7, 1966 and January 4, 1967 to the Senior Scales of the Service and also the order of confirmation dated 22-1-1970 one more writ petition was also filed to the same effect in the S.C. appellant Guman Singh as well as the writ petitioners U/A 32 of the constitution also filed stay applications before the S.C. and on 3-2-1970 and the Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Raj. gave an undertaking before the S.C. that the State Govt, shall not make any further promotion or confirmations to the senior scale or Selection Scale of the Service until the decision of the Supreme Court in those matters. Subsequently an application was moved on behalf of the State Government for the modification of the undertaking given earlier on its behalf and on July 20, 1970 the State Government gave a modified undertaking before the Supreme Court that all promotions whether in the same line or some other line, shall be subject to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was accepted by their Lordships of the Supreme Court The Slate Government thereafter made appointments by promotion to the Scale of the Service by its order dated December 26, 1970 on the basis of seniority-cum-merit as well as merit alone. The selection against the merit quota was made on the basis of the making formula contained in the impugned circular dated August 27, 1966 and the respondent Gopeshwar Bhatt as well as some other persons were promoted to the Selection Scale of the Service. It may be mentioned here that the two appellants before us in special appeal No. 84 of 1974 as well as the respondent's No. 5 to 9 in that appeal were also holding the posts in the senior Scale of the Service also with Gopeshwar Bhatt at the time and were eligible for promotion to the Selection Scale, but they were not so promoted. 6. 6. The Supreme Court ultimately by its order dated July 26, 1971 accepted the appeal of Guman Singh and the writ petitions filed by Moti Lal Kakkar and another to the extent that the circular dated August 27, 1966 was struck down as "illegal and invalid". In the appeal of Guman Singh certain other directions were given, with which we are not concerned, but in the writ petitions filed by Moti Lal Kakkar and another, their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased only to make a declaration that the aforesaid circular was illegal and invalid and that it was struck down. The remaining prayers regarding striking down of the promotions made by the order dated January 4, 1967 and their confirmation by the order dated January 22, 1970 were not allowed on the ground that they kept quite and allowed the officiating promotions of all officers to stand from 1967 and even kept waited till the State Government confirmed the promotions of those officers by its order dated January 22, 1970. Their Lordships observed. "We are entitled to take this circumstance into account for denying the larger reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner when they attack the orders dated January 4, 1970 and January 23, 1970". In the above except January 4, 1970 appears to be a typing error. The correct date intended was January 4, 1967. Thereafter the State Government "keeping in view the inplications" of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee to reconsider the promotions made to the Selection Scale of the Service by the order dated December 26, 1970 in view of the fact that the circular dated August 27, 1966 on the basis of which those selections were made was struck down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The Departmental Promotion Committee considered the cases of all persons then eligible for promotion to the Selection Scale against the merit quota, including the persons appointed by the order dated 26-12-1970 in accordance with the provisions of Rules 28B and 32 and altogether ignored the circular dated August 27, 1966 from considerations. The Departmental Promotion Committee considered the cases of all persons then eligible for promotion to the Selection Scale against the merit quota, including the persons appointed by the order dated 26-12-1970 in accordance with the provisions of Rules 28B and 32 and altogether ignored the circular dated August 27, 1966 from considerations. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee, the State Government by its order dated April 12, 1973 modified its earlier order dated December 26, 1970 and the names of respondent Gopeshwar Bhatt and six others were removed from the list of persons appointed by promotion to the Selection Scale of the service against its quota while the two appellants (in special appeal No. 84 of 1974) & five others were appointed to the aforesaid Selection Scale in place of those seven persons. It was also mentioned in the aforesaid order dated April 12, 1977 that the appointment of respondent Gopeshwar Bhatt & 6 ors. to the Selection Scale of the Service shall be deemed to have been cancelled with effect from December 26, 1970 and two appellants and five others, who were selected afresh by the newly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee would be deemed to have been appointed to the Selection Scale of the Service Substantively by promotion with effect from December 26, 1970. 7. Petitioner Gopeshwar Bhatt challenged the order of the Stale Government dated December 26, 1970 on the ground that the State Government having once made the appointments to the Selection .Scale of the Service had no power to review the same under Rule 32, that, decision of the Supreme Court did not authorise such re-opening of the oases of persons who were not parties in Guman Singh's case (1) or were not petitioners before the Supreme Court, and lastly on the ground that the principles of natural justice were not followed while cancelling the appointment of petitioner Bhatt, Kothari and Kakkar were two of the seven respondents in the said petition. 8. 8. The State Government's answer was that selections to the Senior Scale of the Service were made in 1970 by employing the marking formula which was struck down by their Lordships in Guman Singh's case (1) & therefore the appointments made on that basis including that of petitioner Bhatt were invalid and illegal, in view of the modified undertaking given by the State in the Supreme Court on July 20, 1970 to the effect that all promotions would be subject to the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Government was under clear obligation to reconsider the appointments made on December 26, 1970 particularly because they were made with the use of she making formula declared illegal and invalid by the Supreme Court. 9. The learned Single Judge found that the State Govt. had no power to review the appointments made on December 26, 1970 under rule 32 of the Rules that such appointments were only voidable is not altogether void and only the affected parsons could have challenged such appointments. It was further held that as the appointment of Gopeshwar Bhatt was not challenged by any person affected by his promotion to the Selection Scale of the Service, it was not open to the Stats Government to review his appointment & the undertaking given by the State before the Supreme Court was limited to the parties concerned and it did not entitle the State Government to make & general review The learned Single Judge by his order dated April 25, 1974 allowed the writ petition filed by Gopeshwar Bhatt and set aside the order dated April 12, 1973 qua him and further directed the State Government to restore Gopeshwar Bhatt to the position he had occupied prior to the passing of the aforesaid order dated April 12, 1973, 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order Kothari & Kakkar have filed a joint appeal, being special appeal No. 84 of 1974, while the State of Rajasthan has filed a separate appeal, being appeal No, 92 of 1974. Both those appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 11. Mr. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order Kothari & Kakkar have filed a joint appeal, being special appeal No. 84 of 1974, while the State of Rajasthan has filed a separate appeal, being appeal No, 92 of 1974. Both those appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 11. Mr. Mridul, on behalf of the appellants in special appeal No. 64 of 1971 urged that on account of the undertaking given by the State on July 20, 1970 before the Supreme Court in Guman Singh's case (1) & in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, the promotion order dated 26-12-1970 being based on the illegal marking formula could not have been permitted by the State to stand. What the Supreme Court said in Guman Singh's appeal and the writ petition of Motilal Kakkar and another was clear and unequivocal that the marking formula of August 27, 1966 was "illegal & invalid" & that was the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution, the State was bound to reconsider the promotions in the light thereof. Even assuming the order of the State Government dated December 26, 1970 was voidable, the learned counsel urged the said order could have been modified or reversed by the State at the instance of the affected parties. If the affected parties had approached this court added the learned counsel, in view of the Supreme Court's Judgment, the order of promotion dated December 26, 1970 was bound to be struck down by its Court as well because it was made by the State in ignorance of the correct legal position. Mr. Mridul relied upon the decision of this Court in Romeshwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Misc Writ Petition No 110 of 1967) and the special appeal preferred by Gopsuhwar Bhatt decided on July 27, 1972 12. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing in the other appeal No. 92 of 1974 endorsed the argument of Mr. Mridul in appeal No. 84 of 1974. 13. Mr. Kasliwal, appearing for Gopeshwar Bhatt, supported the judgment of the learned single Judge and adopted the reasons given by him. Mr. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing in the other appeal No. 92 of 1974 endorsed the argument of Mr. Mridul in appeal No. 84 of 1974. 13. Mr. Kasliwal, appearing for Gopeshwar Bhatt, supported the judgment of the learned single Judge and adopted the reasons given by him. Mr. Kasliwal, conceded that the promotions which were made on December 26, 1970 did employ the marking formula which the Supreme Court declared "illegal and invalid" but the judgment could be applied to only four persons who were parties in Guman Singh's appeal and it did not empower the state to undo what it had done under Rule 32. The State Government declared before the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly that a general review was not contemplated pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court, nor was it the intention of the judgment of the Supreme Court which even denied further relief to Motilal Kakkar and another petitioner Gopeshwar Bhatt, added Mr. Kasliwal, could not be demoted after having been finally promoted because it was violative of Article 311 of the constitution of India and the principles of natural justice. 14. In our opinion, it is correct to say that the State Government has no power to review its decision made under Rule 32 of the Rules but we have to consider the effect of the undertaking given by the State Government before the Supreme Court during the pendency of Guman Singh's appeal in that Court. The learned Single Judge has observed that the undertaking given by the State Government before the Supreme Court was to safeguard the interests of Guman Singh and others who were, before their Lordships and it was for that reason that the appointments to be made by the State Government were subjected to the decision in that case and the undertaking could not be construed to have wider range and this is inferable from the limited relief granted to have a wider range and this is inferable from the limited relief granted in that appeal and the petitions. We are of the opinion that the undertaking given by the State Government will have to be examined in the perspective of the events which led to the giving of that undertaking. We are of the opinion that the undertaking given by the State Government will have to be examined in the perspective of the events which led to the giving of that undertaking. Twenty nine persons were temporarily promoted to the Senior Scale of the Service by the order of the State dated December 7, 1966 under the seniority-cum-merit quota and 15 persons were temporarily promoted by the order dated January 4, 1967 under the merit quota. All these promotions were made on the marking formula introduced by circular dated August 27, 1966 No promotions to the higher grades in the service were made thereafter obviously because they were the subject matter of challenge before this Court in the writ petition filed by Guman Singh and the subsequent special appeal preferred by the State. The Division Bench by its order dated January 20, 1970 dismissed the appeal and soon thereafter the State Government confirmed the aforesaid 44 persons to the Senior Scale of the Service. Thereafter Guman Singh filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and one of the appellants before us Motilal Kakkar also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. One more writ petition was also directly filed before the Supreme Court and stay applications were moved in the appeal as well as in the writ petitions In order to stall a stay order the Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan gave on undertaking on February 3, 1970 to the effect that further promotions shall not be made to the higher grades in the Service. Probably it was felt later that the undertaking given was in too wide terms and it would not be proper to keep promotions to higher grades in the Service In abeyance for a long time and therefore the State Government applied for the modification of the undertaking given fay it and on July 20, 1970 it gave a modified undertaking before the Supreme Court which was accepted and an order was passed by their Lordships in she following terms: "All promotions whether in the same line or in some other line shall be subject to the orders of this Court." 15. la order to ascertain the ambit of the undertaking in our opinion, the important words are "all promotions" and "in the same line or in some other line". la order to ascertain the ambit of the undertaking in our opinion, the important words are "all promotions" and "in the same line or in some other line". The adjective "all" before promotions excludes the possibilities of exceptions. It is not restricted by such words as affecting the parties before the Supreme Court. The word "alt" is clearly all embracing. The words "in the same line or in some other line" covers in its sweep promotions in all lines of the Service. These words doubtlessly widen the area covered by the undertaking rather than restrict it to the parties affected in the litigation. In any event it was not the intention of the undertaking when it was made to confine it to cases of the appellant and the petitioners before the Supreme Court. The undertaking became the order of the Supreme Court. It was not possible for the State on July 20, 1970 to anticipate the ultimate result of the pending litigation before the Supreme Court, wherein the fate of the formula adopted by it in making promotions was itself in balance. In our opinion therefore, the undertaking given by the State Government before the Supreme Court clearly related to ail promotions made to the posts in the service which was the subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in the appeal of Guman Singh and the writ petitions. At any rate, one of the appellants before us, Motilal Kakkar, was a party before the supreme Court as he was one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court in whose case the undertaking was given by the state Government. It is not disputed that Motilal Kakkar was affected by the order of promotion to Selection Scale posts by the Mate Government on December 26, 1970 After the aforesaid undertaking was given by the State before the Supreme Court and even if the undertaking be taken to be confined to the parties before the Supreme Court, because of the tact that Motilal Kakkar was affected by the order of December 26, 1970 the State Government was under an obligation to reconsider the said order in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court declaring the circular dated August 27, 1966 as invalid and illegal. 16. Mr. 16. Mr. Kasliwal contended that because the order dated December 26, 1970 is passed under Rule 32 (2) and because no mention of the undertaking given by the state Government is made in the order of December 26,1970 the order of the 26th December, 1970 is absolute and the appointments made thereunder are neither temporary nor provisional. The argument has no force in the context of the events. The state Government was aware that it had given an undertaking before the Supreme Court and we cannot presume that the State of Rajasthan had given the undertaking could not in our opinion wipe out the effect of a solemn undertaking given before the Supreme Court. 17. Mr. Kasliwal also contended that Gopeshwar Bhatt was not a party to the undertaking given by the State Government to the Supreme Court and the State Government did not pass the subsequent order dated April 12, 1973 showing that it was due to that undertaking and that it did not affect him. Gopeshwar Bhatt in our opinion could be promoted only because of the modified undertaking given by the Mate on July 20, 1970. His appointment was, therefore, clearly subject to the terms of the undertaking. 18. It was finally contended that the final judgment of the Supreme Court dated July 26, 1971 while deciding Guman Singh's appeal and the two writ petitions did not give any direction or order in respect of the promotions made during the pendency of those cases and because Motilal Kakkar was given a mere declaration the undertaking given by the State should be deemed to have merged in the final orders of the Supreme Court. A bare perusal of the order dated April 12, 1973 show that the state Government appointed a Departmental Committee for recommendation of the promotions made to the selection Scale of the Service in the year 1970 on account of the implications of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Guman Singh's case. The Supreme Court had struck down the marking formula arid it was, therefore, incumbent upon the State to reconsider the order of promotion made on December 26, 1970 because it was on the basis of that formula that these promotions were made. The State Government had given the undertaking that promotions made during the pendency would be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court. The State Government had given the undertaking that promotions made during the pendency would be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court. The promotions on December 26, 1970 were made during the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court and the State did employ the discredited marking formula in the process of those promotions. Therefore a reconsideration was clearly called for. After excluding the marking formula the orders dated April 12, 1973 was passed. The supreme Court granted relief to Motilal Kakkar and another, other than mere declaration because they were guilty of laches. The same reasoning could not be made applicable in respect of the promotions made by the order dated December 20, 1970 because writ petitions of Motilal Kakkar and another were already pending before the Supreme Court when that order was passed. The Supreme Court could not have given any direction in respect of the order dated December 26, 1970 as it was not the subject matter of challenge before their Lordships. We are unable to agree that the granting of a declaration to the effect that the circuiar dated August 27, 1966 was "illegal and invalid" had the effect of nullifying the undertaking for action taken by the State during the pendency of the appeal and the petitions before the Supreme Court. What their Lordships observed in regard to the marking formula was that it was illegal and invalid and it became the law of the land in accordance with the provisions of Art. 141 of the Constitution. Ail actions taken by the State Government during the pendency of the appeal and the writ petitions before the Supreme Court were subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court. In other words they were without prejudice to the ultimate decision. On account of the aforesaid undertaking it was not necessary for their Lordships of the Supreme Court to elaborate and say that any action taken during the pendency of the appeal and the petition should be in accordance with the law declared by them. 19. In so far as the controversy whether the order dated 26-12-70, is void or voidable, it is not necessary for us to enter into it because in our view the said order is subject to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court on account of the undertaking given by the State Govt, on 20-12-70. 19. In so far as the controversy whether the order dated 26-12-70, is void or voidable, it is not necessary for us to enter into it because in our view the said order is subject to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court on account of the undertaking given by the State Govt, on 20-12-70. A clear obligation was cast on the State Government to reconsider the order of promotion dated December 26, 1970. The Supreme Court's declaration could not be ignored by the State Government and more so in view of its express undertaking referred to above. The learned Single Judge has himself observed that the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court is to be taken as law at ail relevant times and therefore the circular in question should be considered to be illegal and invalid at all material times since its very inception. We only wish to add that the natural consequence of this declaration must also follow. We might add that Motilal kakkar was an affected party so far as for as the order dated January 22, 1967 and the order of confirmation dated January 22, 1970 were concerned, as he was also eligible for promotion to the Senior Scale of the Service and all the parsons, where promoted by the aforesaid two orders against the merit quota ami nude respondents No 2 to 15 in his writ petition before the Supreme Court were all his juniors as mentioned in para 12 of the judgment in Guman Singh's thus Motilal Kakkar was directly an affected party and he was eligible to challenge the appointments of persons who were promoted to the senior Scale of the Service by superseding him, yet the Supreme Court denied the relief of striking down the aforesaid two orders challenged by him. It is, therefore, clear that the reason for refusing to strike down the said orders was not that the circular and the orders made in pursuance thereof were void ibis or that Motilal Kakkar was not an affected party but it is only on account of the laches that their Lordships of the Supreme Court refused the relief as is clear from para 51 of the judgment in Guman Singh's case. Moreover, once the circular was declared illegal and invalid it was for all persons and the state Government had to reconsider the promotions made on the basis thereof by the order dated December 26, 1970. 20. Once more aspect of the matter requires consideration. Even if the promotion made by the order dated December 26, 1970 on the basis of the aforesaid circular were considered lo be avoid able, then they could have been successfully challenged by means of a writ petition before this court by appellants Kakkar and Kothari before us, who were undoubtedly affected parties. In these circumstances, there was nothing improper if they made representations to the State Government and the (State Government itself rectified its error by reconsidering the appointments made on the basis of the said illegal and invalid circular. The (affected panics could demand justice at the hands of the State Government (before coming in for a writ of mandamus and the State was justified in Tendering justice to them. In Rameshwar Singh's case, referred to above, this Court held that the Supreme Court did not strike down the circular in question only prospectively but held it to be invalid without any qualification. The special appeal preferred by Gopeshwar Bhatt was dismissed by the Division Bench, to which one of us was a party, by its order dated July 27, 1972, inter alia, making the following observations:- "That circular has been struck down Selection male on the touch stone of that in aid document cannot survive. When the balance which weighed, was itself ill-adjusted, the assessment of the weights of the 3 appellants and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 could not be said to be correct ........... ................ ....... Proper rating of eligible competitors can be done justly by a common competition and simultaneous assessment." If the appellants before us had approached this Court as Ramsshwar Singh did this Court would have no hesitation in striking out the order dated December 26, 1970 for the same reason which has been given by this Court in Rameshwar Singh's case namely that the selection on the basis of that invalid document could not survive. If the State Government had done what was expected of it, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order of the State Government and issue a writ. If the State Government had done what was expected of it, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order of the State Government and issue a writ. Substantial justice has been done between the parties and we are of the opinion, with respect, that the learned Single Judge was not justified in striking out the order of the State Government dated April 12, 1973 in the circumstances of the case. 21. Mr. Kasliwal's argument, that there is violation of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India in the present case, is devoid of force. The order dated December 26, 1970 was subject to the application of the undertaking given by the State Government before the Supreme Court and the undoing of it does not visit petitioner Gopeshwar Bhati with any stigma attracting the applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution The order dated December 26, 1970 was inherently tentative subject to the decision of the Supreme Court. 22. Lastly it was argued by Mr. Kasliwal that the principles of natural justice were violated as the order dated April 12, 1973 was passed without the hearing. Learned counsel relied upon the General Manager Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi and another v. Madan Lal Chopra 1971 (1) SLR 629 and State of Punjab v. K.K. Roy and Sobhag Raj Mehta, 1972 SLR 836 in this connection. Both these cases are not applicable to the circumstances; of the case before us. Gopeshwar Bhatt in this writ petition has not pleaded that his merits were not taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee. 23. In result, we allow both these appeals and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition filed by Gopeshwar Bhatt. There will be no order as to costs. *******