JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a member of Rajasthan Police Service as a direct recruit appointee of the year 1970 under the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954. In pursuance of the appointment order based on his regular selection for Rajasthan Police Service on 2.5.1970, the petitioner joined the Rajasthan Police Service on 6.5.1970, the date from which he was later on confirmed on completion of the period of probation. The final seniority list was published on 22.9.1973 wherein, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 118. The petitioner was then promoted to the senior scale of Rajasthan Police Service on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee vide order dated 30.6.1982 on seniority-cum-merit basis. The petitioner has stated that although, he is contesting against his belated promotion to the senior scale, for the purpose of the present writ petition he rests his claim as a promotee in the senior-scale in terms of the order dated 30.6.82. Based on the recommendations of the DPC an order was passed on 24.1.1991 placing the petitioner in the selection-scale. The petitioner then refers to the revised combined seniority-list dated 30.6.1990 showing the positions of the officers as on 1.1.78, 1.10.79, 15.12.80, 1.1.83, 1.1.85 and 1.7.87 in the senior- scale. The petitioner goes on to state that the respondents Nos. 3 to 17 are all junior to the petitioner in the ordinary scale of Rajasthan Police Service and respondents who are given selection-scale earlier to the petitioner against the reserved quota, had entered the service subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner. 2. While referring to the Scheme of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954, Rule 6 relating to the cadre, composition and strength of service and Schedule-I thereof, there were 53 posts of senior-scale out of which 19 were to be held by officers drawing their pay in the selection-scale. It has been further stated that the holders of all these 53 posts are inter-transferable and there is no distinction with regard to holding of a particular post by a person drawing pay in the selection-scale or a person drawing pay in the senior-scale. It has been further stated that the holders of all these 53 posts are inter-transferable and there is no distinction with regard to holding of a particular post by a person drawing pay in the selection-scale or a person drawing pay in the senior-scale. Under Proviso (a) of Rule 6, the Government may create any post permanent or temporary but, the nature of the post can only be changed by making an amendment in the Schedule but, no such amendment has been made; however, the number of posts were revised vide order dated 4.12.1985 w.e.f. 1.4.1985 and, thereby, the total number of posts of senior-scale was increased from 53 to 58 maintaining the number of 19 in selection scale. The petitioner has then stated that on April 19/22, 1988 the number of officers drawing selection scale was increased from 19 to 22 and yet the strength of senior scale remained the same, whereas the respondent No. 7 has placed on record a document (Notification) dated 4.10.1985 issued by Home (Gr. 1) Department, under signatures of Commissioner and Secretary to Government with an additional affidavit dated 30.4.92 showing that this number was increased from 19 to 30. 3. The officers against whom the petitioner has raised the grievance through this writ petition are respondents Nos. 3 to 17 who have been granted selection from dates earlier than the petitioner and they according to him have entered the Rajasthan Police Service on dates subsequent to the date of his entry and who are junior to him. The petitioner has classified officers who are the members of SC and ST and the officers of general category separately. According to the petitioner the respondents Nos. 3 to 11 are the members of the SC/ST and they all have entered the service subsequent to the petitioner but have been granted selection scale from earlier dates. Respondents Nos. 12 to 17 belong to the general category and they are all junior to the petitioner in the ordinary scale as well as seniority on their being placed in selection scale on the basis of the merit by treating the grant of selection scale as promotion, these six officers have also been granted selection scale on dates earlier than the petitioner. 4. The details with regard to the respondents Nos. 3 to 11 are as under : Sr. 4. The details with regard to the respondents Nos. 3 to 11 are as under : Sr. No. Respondent No. Name of Officer Members of SC/ST Date of Entry in Raj. Police Date of grant of selection scale 1. 3 Shri Chunnilal SC 24.11.73 7.3.1986 2. 4 Shri Prahlad Rai Javeriya SC 27.12.73 7.3.1986 3. 5 Shri Madanlal Dahiya SC 23.3.73 22.4.1988 4. 6 Shri Bhagwati Prasad SC 23.11.73 27.4.1989 5. 7 Kumari Badam Bairwa SC 17.10.79 27.4.1986 6. 8 Shri Jagdish Chandra Kanwar ST 7.4.74 7.3.1986 7. 9 Shri Jagan Lal Meena ST 20.3.76 27.4.1989 8. 10 Shri Hari Ram Meena ST 17.10.79 27.4.1989 9. 11 Shri Laxminarain Meena ST 1973 9.3.1986 The details with regard to the respondents Nos. 12 to 17 are as under:(General Category) Sr. No. Respondent No. Name of Officers who have been granted Sel. Scale by merit Date of Entry in RPS Date of grant of selection scale Ordinary Scale 1. 12 Shri Hanuman Singh Bishnoi 6.5.1970 7.3.1986 Senior Scale 2. 13 Shri Dinesh Chandra Sharma 25.10.1971 22.4.1986 3. 14 Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma 20.3.1973 27.4.1990 4. 15 Shri Kundan Dayal Sharma 20.3.1973 24.9.1990 5. 16 Shri Padam Chand Kalu 25.5.1994 24.9.1990 6. 17 Liaquat Ali 27.11.1973 24.9.1990 5. The petitioner's grievance is that he has been granted selection scale from 24.1.1991 while the officers as aforesaid who are junior to him have been granted selection scale from dates earlier to 24.1.1991. 6. On these premises the petitioner through this writ petition has sought to challenge and raise the following matters: (i) The vires of Rule 8 of Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954. (i) The procedure dated 10.2.75 and a 100 points roster dated 9.7.85 issued by the Government of Rajasthan fixing the points for reservation for SC/ST. (iii) The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been wrongly treating the grant of selection scale as promotion to the higher post which is contrary to the scheme of the Rules as well as Schedule I appended to the Rules and that it is contrary to Article 16(4) and Article 335 of the Constitution of India. (iv) Assignment of higher seniority to the officers who are accorded selection scale earlier is in violation of Rule 33 which speaks about the determination of the seniority on the basis of the date of regular selection to a higher post and not the higher scale. (iv) Assignment of higher seniority to the officers who are accorded selection scale earlier is in violation of Rule 33 which speaks about the determination of the seniority on the basis of the date of regular selection to a higher post and not the higher scale. (v) Assignment of the higher seniority on account of accelerated promotion to the members of the reserved class with reference to the submission that the erstwhile senior should regain his seniority vis-a-vis his junior who have been granted selection scale earlier in point of time on account of reservation; the same is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the officers of the reserved quota are only entitled for reservation to the extent of 28% and not more than 28% in accordance with the existing scheme of the rule made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, 7. A reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 and 10 on 9.1.1992 through Shri M.K. Sharma, Advocate, a separate reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 14,15 and 17 through Shri M.K. Sharma, Advocate on 9.1.1992, a separate reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 through Shri C.K. Garg (the then Additional Advocate General) on 29.1.1992 under signatures of Shri Umesh Joshi, Additional Director Prosecution (Police) Home, an application with a chart showing the details of Selection-Scale and Super-time Scale of Rajasthan Police Officers along with an affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 10.3.1992 and, thereafter, an affidavit dated 30.4.1992 was also filed by the petitioner along with a Chart-A and on this very date i.e. 30.4.1992 an additional affidavit was filed by respondent No. 7 in this case with a copy of the Notification dated 4.10.1985 as Annexure R. 7/1 and lastly, on behalf of the State of Rajasthan an affidavit of one Shri S.N. Tambi, Deputy Secretary to the Government, DOP (A-II) was filed containing the genesis of creation of Selection Scale post in Rajasthan Police Service on 4.11.1992 with photostat copies of certain note sheets and, thus, all the items as aforesaid form the part of the pleadings in this case. 8. 8. On the basis of the pleadings and the submissions made at the bar on behalf of both the sides, we proceed to adjudicate the issues raised before us as under: (I) Whether there is/are any separate post/posts in the Selection Scale under the Scheme of the Rules or it is only a question of placing certain senior-scale officers in Selection Scale that is in a higher pay-scale ? 9. In order to find out as to whether there is/are any separate post/posts in the selection scale provided in the Scheme of the Rules or as to whether any such posts in selection scale have been created. We called upon the learned Additional Advocate General to show the orders with regard to the creation of the posts in the selection scale, but he failed to produce any such orders with regard to the creation of any post/posts in the selection scale and the chart filed on 10.3.1992 along with the affidavit of Officer-in-charge, Shri Umesh Joshi is only a chart prepared with regard to the number of officers in selection scale and there is no order of creation of posts in selection scale, and even after filing the affidavit dated 3,11.1992 of one Shri S.N. Tambi, Deputy Secretary to the Government DOP (A-II) Rajasthan, Jaipur the Additional Advocate General, Shri C.K. Garg, had very candidly stated that there was no separate post in the selection scale as such and he could not show any order of the creation of any post in the selection scale as such. 10. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that there is/are no separate post/posts in the selection scale. The grant of selection scale to certain number of senior scale officers without devolving any higher duties or responsibilities, without exaltation of their status or rank in any manner, is a simple case of allowing selection scale to certain number of officers in the senior scale and there is/are no separate post/posts of selection scale. 11. Schedule-1 referred to in Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 at its item 'A' shows, posts in senior scale, 19 of which will be held by officers drawing pay in selection scale" and thereunder, 53 posts of various Additional Superintendents including the post of Vice-Principal, Police Training College. 11. Schedule-1 referred to in Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 at its item 'A' shows, posts in senior scale, 19 of which will be held by officers drawing pay in selection scale" and thereunder, 53 posts of various Additional Superintendents including the post of Vice-Principal, Police Training College. According to the Schedule 'A' under rule 6 all these 53 posts are designated as Additional Superintendents and any officers whether he is in senior scale or in the Selection Scale is Additional Superintendent, the only difference is that out of the holders, of these 53 posts, 19 officers are to be placed and paid in the selection scale. Thus, there is no dispute, that the holders of all these posts are Additional Superintendents of Police irrespective of their being in senior or selection scale and thus, out of the holders of the posts of Additional Superintendents, if certain numbers of officers are placed in a higher pay scale, it can't be said that it is an appointment to any post in selection scale. (II) Whether the grant of selection scale does not involve any promotion? It has been submitted by Shri Asopa that the holders of posts of Additional Superintendents are inter-changeable and no such post in selection scale is defined or identified at any particular place and the selection. scale is attached only to the officer to whom the selection scale is granted. The Additional Superintendent getting senior scale, does not suffer the subordination of the Additional Superintendent who is placed in the selection scale. Additional Superintendents in senior scale may replace Additional Superintendent in the selection scale and vice versa. 12. As against the aforesaid submissions it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the grant of selection scale to an officer who is working in senior scale, involves the process of selection. Additional Superintendents in senior scale may replace Additional Superintendent in the selection scale and vice versa. 12. As against the aforesaid submissions it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the grant of selection scale to an officer who is working in senior scale, involves the process of selection. Apart from the fact that selection scale is a higher pay scale which is a very important criteria to show that it is a case of promotion, it is an undisputed position that the selection scale is granted on the basis of selection made from amongst the senior scale officers and the process of selection is the same as is followed in the cases of regular promotions through DPC and the practice which has been going on for all these years in past right from the very beginning would show that it has always been treated by the Government as a case of promotion. Submissions were also made with reference to the rule relating to the revised criteria, eligibility and procedure for promotion to junior, senior and other posts and cadre in the service and while counting the number of promotions which officers may get up to the highest post/posts in the service against which the appointments by promotions are to be made on the basis of merit alone, the grant of selection scale to senior scale officers has been considered as a case of promotion and it was submitted that throughout, the Government has been treating it as a case of promotion. It was submitted by Shri Asopa on behalf of the petitioners in reply to the aforesaid argument that even if the Government has been treating it as a case of promotion while granting the selection scale to senior scale officers on the basis of wrong interpretation of the rules, the petitioners are not bound by such a wrong practice based on wrong interpretation of rules and, therefore, the same should not come in the way of the petitioners. Such matters are to be decided with reference to the correct interpretation of the provisions contained in the rules as and when the question is raised before Court and the practice followed by the department is not at all germane. 13. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides on this aspect of the matter. Such matters are to be decided with reference to the correct interpretation of the provisions contained in the rules as and when the question is raised before Court and the practice followed by the department is not at all germane. 13. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides on this aspect of the matter. Caption 'A' under Schedule 1 to Rule 6 makes it very clear that as a part of the strength of the service and the nature of the posts therein, all the posts are posts in senior scale and certain number of it are to be held by officers drawing pay in selection scale. It is, therefore, very clear that whether an officer is drawing pay in the senior scale or selection scale, he is holding the same post. When a senior scale officer is granted the selection scale, he neither leaves the post which was already held by him nor he occupies any new post, in other words, the post held by him remaining the same, he starts getting the pay in selection scale instead of senior scale and this by itself cannot confer a higher status or rank. No doubt, higher emoluments is one of the indicia so as to decide whether it is a case of promotion or not but, the higher emoluments or higher pay scale cannot be the sole decisive factor to make it a case of promotion. The grant of selection scale to a senior scale officer does not exalt his status, rank or honour. He does not stand elevated to any superior or commanding position over other senior scale officers and thus, without enjoining any exaltation in rank or status or without discharging any higher duties or responsibilities he only getting a higher pay scale. The grant of selection scale to a senior scale officer does not exalt his status, rank or honour. He does not stand elevated to any superior or commanding position over other senior scale officers and thus, without enjoining any exaltation in rank or status or without discharging any higher duties or responsibilities he only getting a higher pay scale. It appears that such like provisions granting higher pay scale have been incorporated in the scheme of the Rules so as to avoid stagnation and to keep and maintain the interest of the officers in the service so as to maintain standards of efficiency in the discharge of the duties and, therefore, it was conceived that when a person has continued in a particular pay scale for a considerably long time and yet he does not get further promotion for want of adequate number of posts, he may be granted a higher pay scale so that he who has become stagnant in a particular pay scale, does not lose interest in the matters of the discharge of duties. Such situations were considered by the Rajasthan Pay Commission headed by Justice B.P. Berry (former Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court) and the reference may be conveniently made to page 77 of the Report of the Rajasthan Pay Commission (1979-81) wherein it has been considered that in accordance with Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969 (1.9.1968) a Government servant drawing pay at the maximum of the existing pay scale for a period of two years or more was allowed benefits admissible under the normal pay fixation rules; a Government servant who was eligible to draw advance grade increment under Rule 13 of these rules, but could not draw the same on having been blocked at maximum of the pay scale on 31.3.70 was allowed a personal pay equal to the amount of last increment drawn before reaching the stage of maximum. Similar provisions have also been noted in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised New Pay Scales) Rules, 1976 (1.9.76). Similar provisions have also been noted in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised New Pay Scales) Rules, 1976 (1.9.76). Suggestions received by the Berry Commission to meet cases of stagnation, included the prescribing of selection grades and other suggestions were to increase the promotion quota, to provide for automatic promotions on reaching the maximum of the scale or on completion of 10 years of service, to allow increments even after reaching the maximum of the scale at the rate of last increment in the scale etc. Thus, to our mind, the grant of selection scale to the certain number of officers working in the senior scale so as to avoid stagnation, so as to keep the interest of the officers in the service intact, does not involve any promotion for want of exaltation of the rank or honour. 14. In 1973 Lab IC 1399 (N. G. Prabhu v. Hon'ble Chief Justice) the Full Bench of Kerala High Court has taken the view that the nomination of senior to the higher pay scale does not involve promotion. 15. In Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 850 , it has been held that, the selection grade District Judges are only those who draw pay in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-100-2000 for which no promotion is contemplated and mere posting as an Inspecting District Judge by itself does not make an officer so posted superior to other District Judges and the true legal position is that while the first six persons in the Seniority List of District Judges based on the length of continuous officiation in the cadre of District Judges can be recipients of salary in the grade selection pay scale, the post of Inspecting District Judges and of the Registrar need not necessarily be held by them. Apart from the legal position which has been discussed hereinabove, it is the common case of the parties that in the Rajasthan Police Service the officers working as Additional Superintendents in the senior scale and the officers who are being paid in the selection scale are inter-changeable and such changes or replacement and substitution by way of posting and transfers in the Rajasthan Police Service is a matter of routine and thus the officers who have been working in the service for a considerably long time in the senior scale as Additional Superintendents are placed in selection scale. Merely because, the Government follows the process of selection to identify the officers whom the selection scale is to be granted cannot confer a higher status so as to make it a case of promotion. To our mind, even if the Government has been treating it as a case of promotion and as was sought to be demonstrated with reference to contention raised in Ajeet Singh's case reported in 1991 Supp(1) SCC 343: (Ajeet Singh Singhvi v. State of Rajasthan and Jagbir Singh v. State of Rajasthan) the petitioner's just claim cannot be defeated. When the relevant provisions under the scheme of the Rules do not show that it is a case of promotion, merely because, there is an element of selection in vogue before giving the selection scale and merely because the Government under some misconception of law has been treating it as if it is a case of promotion, in the eye of law it cannot be said that the grant of selection scale involves any promotion and we are of the considered opinion that grant of selection scale does not involve any promotion. (III) Whether under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 the reservation has to be of vacancies or of posts ? 16. Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India and Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 1 are reproduced as under: "Article 16(4) : Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the Services under the State."Rule 8: (RPS Rules, 1954) "Reservation of vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes:- Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be in accordance with the orders of Government for such reservation in force at the time of recruitment. 17. Article 16(4) enables the State to make provisions for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services under the State. Thus, the words used in Article 16(4) are, "reservation of appointments or posts". 17. Article 16(4) enables the State to make provisions for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services under the State. Thus, the words used in Article 16(4) are, "reservation of appointments or posts". In order to give effect to the object of adequate representation of backward class of citizens in the services under the State while framing the rules under Proviso to Article 309 Rule 8 has been incorporated in the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Rule 8 speaks of the reservation of the vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In this regard, 1978 Serv. LJ 401 (J.C. Malik v. Union of India) was cited before us. This is a Division Bench's decision of the Allahabad High Court. The view was taken that the Railway Board's Circular dated 20.4.70 providing reservation quota to the extent of 15% in favour of SC and ST is in respect of appointment to the posts and not to the vacancies which may occur in the cadre on the post/posts. The respondents were directed to make the selection in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Railway Board's Circular dated 20.4.70. The relevant portion of Railway Board's Circular dated 20.4.70 is as under:- "It has also been decided that in vacancies in posts filled by promotion in which reservations have been provided vide Railway Board's letter No.E(SCT) 58 CM 15/10 dated 27.8.1968, the percentage of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in such posts shall also be raised from 121/2% to 15% in favour of Scheduled Castes and from 5% to 7% in favour of Scheduled Tribes." 18. Observations made in para 6 of the judgment are as under : "In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the Railway Board's circular letter dated 20th April, 1970 made reservation to the extent of 15% in favour of Scheduled Castes in respect of appointment to the post and not to the vacancies which may occur in the cadre of posts. Admittedly, respondents Nos. 4 to 8 have been selected by the Selection Committee and appointed to the post of A Grade Guards on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the Railway Board's Circular letter. Admittedly, respondents Nos. 4 to 8 have been selected by the Selection Committee and appointed to the post of A Grade Guards on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the Railway Board's Circular letter. If the circular was correctly followed and if the reservation quota was confined to the posts in that event Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 could not have been considered or selected for appointment to the posts of A Grade Guards. in our opinion, their selection was not in accordance with law as their selection has been made in excess of the 15% of quota fixed for Scheduled Castes candidates." 19. The petition of J.C. Malik was thus allowed. 20. Our attention was invited to a, copy of the Supreme Court's order placed on record with the present writ petition at page 101 as Annexure 15 that is an order passed by the Supreme Court on 24.9.1984 in Civil Appeal No. 2017/78 i.e. Union of India v. J. C. Malik and others, and as per this document A-15 the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 24.9.84 while clarifying its earlier order dated Feb. 24th, 1984 directed that : "The promotions which may be made hereafter will be strictly in accordance with the judgment of the High Court and such promotions will be subject to the result of the appeal. If any promotions have been made after Feb. 24th, 1984 otherwise than in accordance with the judgment of the High Court, such promotions shall be adjusted against the future vacancies. " 21. We were told that matter is still pending before the Supreme Court. 22. In 1988(4) SLJ 485 (CAT) (Ramchandra v. Union of India and others) Division Bench's decision of the Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in which J.C. Milik (supra) case i.e. the decision of Allahabad High Court has also been considered holding that reservation shall be based on posts and not vacancies and cannot exceed the prescribed quota, was also cited before us and submissions were also made with reference to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rangachari's case reported in AIR 1962 SC 36 (General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari). We have considered the submissions as aforesaid along with the cases cited before us and we are of the opinion that in view of our findings that the grant of selection scale does not involve any appointment by promotion and there is no separate post in the selection scale under the scheme of the rules, we need not to go into this question for the simple reason that when the placement in the selection scale does not involve any promotion and there is/are no separate post/posts of the selection scale, there is no question of any vacancy and the reservation as the vacancy is such a variable factor which may become available again and again against a post which is a constant factor. The existence of a post is a pre-condition or pre-requisite so as to make a vacancy available. When there is/are no separate post/posts of Selection Scale, there is no question of any vacancy or reserved vacancy and hence this question need not detain us any more. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to examine the validity of Rule 8 and the reservation policy dated 10.2.75 or the 100 point roster system dated 9.7.85. (IV) What will be impact of the grant of selection scale on the seniority with reference to Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 ? 23. Coming to the fourth question with regard to the seniority and the provisions contained in Rule 33 it may be pointed out that according to the scheme of the rules, the seniority is to be considered with reference to each category of the post included in Schedule I and Schedule I-A. The only category in question before us is that of Additional Superintendent and, therefore the question of seniority is to be decided with reference to the date and entry of appointment as Additional Superintendents under Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 and whereas, we have already held that there is no separate post in the selection scale, it is only a case of granting selection scale to the certain number of holders of the posts of Additional Superintendents in the senior scale and it does not involve any promotion, the grant of selection scale cannot have any indelible impact rather no impact at all on the seniority. Consequently, an officer who was otherwise senior cannot be made to suffer any loss of seniority, merely because selection scale was given to his junior/juniors by treating the grant of selection scale as a promotion against the so-called reserved vacancy or otherwise because we have held that grant of selection scale does not involve any promotion and there is/are no separate post/posts of selection scale. It is only a case of placement in the selection scale and is neither a case of any direct recruitment or a promotion and as such neither the enabling provisions contained in Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India nor the provisions contained to any Rule, 1954 come into pay so as to allow a march in the seniority to any officer who may be granted selection scale in preference to any of his juniors including such juniors who may have been granted the selection scale because of wrongful consideration of a reserved vacancy for the purpose of granting the selection scale. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that in cases where for any reason a junior officer is granted scale in preference to his senior, it will not have any impact on the seniority position and when occasion comes for promotion beyond the post of Additional Superintendent an officer holding selection scale and who had got the selection scale in preference to his senior shall be considered at the original seniority in the senior scale and the grant of selection scale at an earlier point of time, by itself will not confer higher seniority and would not entail the supersession of any officer who was otherwise and originally senior in the senior scale as Additional Superintendent. 24. In view of our findings as aforesaid, we hereby direct the respondents to prepare the seniority list afresh instead of the impugned seniority list dated 30.6.1990 in the light of our above adjudicatory findings and to restore and relegate the due seniority positions to the petitioner and such other concerned officers, if any, who may have been made to suffer the loss of seniority by wrong application and interpretation of rules and, therefore, to grant all consequential benefits to them for the purpose of promotions etc. The entire exercise including the passing of the final orders in compliance of our directions contained in this order shall be completed as early as possible but in no case later than a period of three months from today. 25. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******