JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated-4.2.87 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 491/81, Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another as also order dated, 2.5.81 passed by the Government for promotion of Senior Lecturers, which has resulted in petitioner's supersession. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for adjudication of the points raised in this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Hindi) on 16.11.64 on temporary basis. He was subsequently selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and was confirmed as Lecturer (Hindi) w. e. f. 13.68. Departmental Promotion Committee met in April 1981 for consideration of the cases of eligible Lecturers for promotion as Senior Lecturers. On the recommendations of the departmental promotion committee order dated, 2.5.81 was passed by the Government for promotion of 217 Junior Lecturers as Senior Lecturers. A number of persons junior to the petitioner were promoted as Senior Lecturers. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal questioning the legality of his supersession. He alleged that the departmental promotion committee had made recommendations against the vacancies which had become available since 1971 and vacancies of five years had been clubbed and that reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes had also been given effect to ignoring the year-wise vacancies. This had resulted in shrinkage of the number of vacancies reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner stated that he had been superseded on account of adverse remarks made in his annual confidential reports for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74. Adverse entries for the year 1972-73 were expunged on a representation made by the petitioner. Adverse entries for 1973-74 were also expunged by the Government vide communication dated 6.7.76. However, by another letter dated, 7/9.8.76 the petitioner was conveyed that adverse remarks in the APAR of 1973-74 have been expunged only in part. Petitioner pleaded that on the basis of a minor adverse remark which had no nexus with his working as a Lecturer he could not have been superseded. He pleaded that although, he had become eligible for promotion against the vacancies of 1971-72, his candidature had not been considered fairly and properly. Petitioner pleaded that on the basis of a minor adverse remark which had no nexus with his working as a Lecturer he could not have been superseded. He pleaded that although, he had become eligible for promotion against the vacancies of 1971-72, his candidature had not been considered fairly and properly. He further pleaded that adverse remarks had been made in total disregard of the instructions issued by the Government and, therefore, the same could not have been relied upon by the departmental promotion committee. Respondent No. 1 contested the appeal and asserted that the departmental promotion committee was convened only for the year 1976 and that there was no clubbing of vacancies. Candidature of the petitioner had also been considered but due to adverse remarks he was not found suitable for promotion by the departmental promotion committee. 4. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated, 4.2.87 and held that supersession of the petitioner on the recommendations of the departmental promotion committee cannot be termed as illegal. Tribunal rejected the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar case decided on 2.11.82, the Tribunal had declared the supersession of appellant Chandmal as arbitrary and unjustified, therefore, his appeal should also be accepted. 5. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the departmental promotion committee has committed a serious illegality in not recommending the petitioner for promotion as Senior Lecturer and thereby superseding him. He argued that the departmental promotion committee has not fairly considered the candidature of the petitioner and on the basis of a stray remark in the APAR of 1973-74, which does not have any direct relation with the performance of the petitioner as Lecturer, the petitioner has been superseded. he further submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious illegality in up-holding supersession of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has given contradictory decisions in almost identical cases and therefore, order passed by the Tribunal must be declared as arbitrary. Shri Awasthi, learned Dy. Government Advocate, has justified the supersession of the petitioner by urging that the petitioner had only a right of consideration and that right of the petitioner has not. been infringed. Shri Awasthi, learned Dy. Government Advocate, has justified the supersession of the petitioner by urging that the petitioner had only a right of consideration and that right of the petitioner has not. been infringed. He submitted that the Tribunals could not sit as a Court of appeal in respect of the recommendations made by the departmental promotion committee and this Court cannot upset the findings of the Tribunal while exercising a certiorari jurisdiction. 6. After conclusion of the argument, the Court had directed Shri Awasthi, learned Dy. Government Advocate to produce the record of the departmental promotion committee. Shri Awasthi, learned Dy. Government Advocate has produced the record of the D. P. C. and the annual confidential reports of the petitioner. A perusal of the record of the D. P. C. shows that in all 212 vacancies were shown to be available. Over 750 persons who had completed more than 7 years' experience were treated to be within the zone of consideration. A statement containing pending departmental enquiries and punishments as well as awards was placed before the departmental promotion committee. Meeting of the departmental promotion committee took place on 13th and 15th April 1981. The departmental promotion committee recommended in all 193 general category candidates and 24 candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Amongst those who were recommended for promotion included Shri Gokul Prasad Sharma, who happened the senior-most Lecturer, even though he had been punished with stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect by an order dated, 29.7.71 for violation of the transfer order. Petitioner's name appeared at serial No. 387 in the list of eligible candidates and amongst the Scheduled Caste candidates, his name was at serial No. 4 and majority of the Scheduled Caste candidates.who were recommended by the departmental promotion committee for promotion were junior to the petitioner. Out of the 18 candidates ultimately promoted from amongst the Scheduled Caste only three were senior to the petitioner. All others were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Lecturers. Some of the persons promoted from the category of Scheduled Caste had joined service as late as in the year 1968 or 1969 in comparison to the petitioner who had joined service on 7.4.65. All others were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Lecturers. Some of the persons promoted from the category of Scheduled Caste had joined service as late as in the year 1968 or 1969 in comparison to the petitioner who had joined service on 7.4.65. Record of the Departmental Promotion Committee also shows that although separate eligibility lists for the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes had been drawn, the departmental promotion committee has recorded that it has simultaneously examined the APAR's and other service record in respect of the persons named in Annexure-1. It has not recorded any reason for declaring 11 persons unsuitable for promotion. As we have already noticed Shri Gokul Prasad Sharma was recommended for promotion by the D. P. C. notwithstanding the fact that he was awarded a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment. Interestingly one Shri P. B. L. Bhatnagar was recommended for provisional promotion even though, an enquiry relating to a charge causing loss to the Government to the tune of र 8,619/- was already in the process of being initiated. It is also necessary to mention that departmental promotion committee had made recommendations for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer on the basis of seniority-cum-merit because,,it was first promotion in the service. 7. For the purpose of promotion, well recognised criterias are seniority, seniority-cum-merit, seniority-cum-suitability, seniority-cum-fitness, merit-cum seniority or merit. Wherever, a post is treated as selection post the criteria for promotion is merit alone. For making appointment on the basis of merit best amongst the eligible candidates is to be chosen unless the rules or administrative instructions lay down any other guideline for determination of merit. When promotion is based on pure seniority, other factors cannot be looked into by the selecting authority. However, problems usually arise in applying criteria of seniority cum-merit, merit-cum-seniority, Seniority-cum-fitness or seniority-cum-suitability. Criteria of seniority-cum-merit, seniority-cum-suitability or seniority-cum-fitness have become subject matter of interpretation and discussion in number of cases decided by the Courts. 8. Learned D. White has in his work 'Introduction to the Study of Public Administration' stated : "The principal object of a promotion system is to secure the best possible incumbents for the higher positions, while maintaining the morale of the whole organisation. The main interest to be served is the public interest, not the personal interest of members of the official group concerned. The main interest to be served is the public interest, not the personal interest of members of the official group concerned. The public interest is best secured when reasonable opportunities for promotion exist for all qualified employees, when really superior civil servants are enabled to move as rapidly up the promotion ladder as their merits deserve and as vacancies occur, and when selection for promotion is made on the sole basis of merit. For the merit system ought to apply as specifically in making promotions as in original requirement .... Employees often prefer the rule of seniority, by which the eligible longest in service is automatically awarded the promotion. Within limits, seniority is entitled to consideration as one criterion of selection. It tends to eliminate favouritism or the suspicion thereof, and experience is certainly a factor in the making of a successful employee. Seniority is given most weight in promotions from the lowest to other subordinate positions. As employees more up the ladder of responsibility, it is entitled to less and less weight. When seniority is made as a determining factor, at any level, it is dangerous guide. It does not follow that the employee longest in service in a particular grade is best suited for promotion to a higher grade; the very opposite may be true." 9. If the criteria for promotion is seniority alone then the person who has served longest in a particular lower cadre or service, is entitled to be promoted. But when the criteria of seniority is applied in its absolute sense then merit factor is altogether ignored and total obliteration of merit results in heavy burden on public and a great strain on the efficiency of public service. The problem, therefore, is to ensure a reasonable prospectus of advancement to all officials and at the same time to protect the public interest in having posts filled by the most able man. Therefore, the question is as to how the balance is to be struck between seniority and merit in a proper promotion policy. 10. While recognising the need for minimal opportunities of promotion, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Raghunath Parasad Singh v. Secretary (Home) Police Department, 1988 S. C. C. (Suppl.) 619 , observed : Reasonable promotional opportunity should be available in every wing of public service. 10. While recognising the need for minimal opportunities of promotion, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Raghunath Parasad Singh v. Secretary (Home) Police Department, 1988 S. C. C. (Suppl.) 619 , observed : Reasonable promotional opportunity should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service factors the appropriate attitude to great for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospectus, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills desire to serve properly." 11. Again in Council of Scientific Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, AIR 1989 S. C. 1972 , their Lordships observed : It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not 'hire a hand' but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well.- (See : Principles of Management of Elipo Edwin B. Fourth Edn. P. 246). Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward." The Organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors." (See : Personnel Management by Dr. Udai Paree l4 P. 277). There cannot be any modern management much less and career- planning, man-power development, management development etc., which is not related to a system of promotions. (See; Management of Personnel in Indian Enterprises by Prof. N. N. Chatterjee Chap. 12, P. 128)." 12. In the light of these observations made by the Apex Court the criteria of seniority-cum-merit or seniority-cum- fitness or seniority-cum-suitability deserves to be examined. 13. In N. Srinath, M. A Somashekar, Assistant Director Industries v. The State of Mysore and others, 1972, SLR 449 , criteria of seniority-cum-merit was explained by a Division Bench of Mysore High Court in the following words : "Whether the promotion be on seniority-cum-merit basis or by selection, it is impossible to promote a junior without considering the case of a senior. In case of the first type of promotions, it is obvious that a senior must be considered first and that when he is found unfit, the case of the next junior, may be considered. In the second category of promotions, the promoting authority must consider a sufficient number of persons in the lower cadre of a number which, a relation to promotional vacancies to be filled, is reasonably sufficient, at the top of the lower cadre for consideration. They should take the number from persons at the top, because both according to well known notions of merit in Government service and according to the express provisions of Rule 4 of the Mysore Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, seniority is an element in the assessment of merit and even in cases where promotion is by selection, due regard must be had for seniority also." 14. In Shadi Lal v. the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon and ors., 1974 (1) SLR 217 , a learned Single Judge of Punjab High Court observed that where selection is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit if the senior eligible person has merit for promotion, he shall be selected irrespective of better merit of his juniors. 15. In Hari Datt Kainthla, Chief Judicial Magistrate and another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1974 (1) SLR 208 , a full Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court explained the criteria of seniority-cum-fitness and merit-cum-seniority by observing that : "A milder form of the principle of seniority should determine the order in which an order of a particular grade should be considered promotion, but those considered unfit may be passed over and officers below them may be considered. This means the seniority-cum-fitness principle, and what it implies is that the senior person unless unfit should get the promotion. The principle has not been found satisfactory because it implies essentially that seniority should be given preponderating weight. The principle of seniority-cum-fitness has been generally applied at the lower levels of service where the duties are of a routine nature. It has also been applied in promotions from a junior scale post to a senior scale past within the same service. But when the question arises of appointment to a higher service consisting of posts carrying superior responsibility the emphasis shifts from seniority-cum-fitness to merit-cum seniority. It has also been applied in promotions from a junior scale post to a senior scale past within the same service. But when the question arises of appointment to a higher service consisting of posts carrying superior responsibility the emphasis shifts from seniority-cum-fitness to merit-cum seniority. The principle of merit determines that the most meritorious or best qualified person is selected for promotion." 16. This matter came to be examined by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas, 1976 (1) SLR 805 . The Apex Court was considering the provisions contained in Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 which contained criteria of seniority-cum-merit. Ray, C. J. who spoke for the majority observed : "The principle of equality is applicable to implement at all stages and in all respects, namely, initial recruitment, promotion, retirement, payment of pension and gratuity. With regard to promotion the normal principles are either merit-cum- seniority or seniority-cum-merit. Seniority-cum-merit means that giving minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though less meritorious shall be priority. This will not violate Articles 14,16 (1) and 16(2)." 17. In Ram Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 (2) Judicial Surveyor 196 , S. C. Agrawal J. (as he then was), considered the criteria of-seniority-cum-merit and after making reference to various judgments observed : "In my opinion, a promotion on the basis of merit and suitability stands on a different footing from promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. As pointed out by Ray C. J. in State of Kerala and others v. N. M. Thomas and others ( AIR 1976 S.C. 490 ) , "Seniority-cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though less meritorious, shall have priority." In other words, for the purpose of making a promotion on the basis of seniority cum-merit what has to be seen is whether the person who ranks senior possesses the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, and there is no question of assessing the comparative merits between two persons. The considerations which weigh for making promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, what has to be seen is whether the person who ranks senior possesses the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, and there is no question of assessing the comparative merits between two persons. The considerations which weigh for making promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, what has to be seen is whether the person who ranks senior possesses the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, and there is no question of assessing the comparative merits between two persons. The consideration which weigh for making promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, are thus not the same. In so far as promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit is concerned, it is more akin to allowing a person to cross the efficiency bar for confirming a person holding a post on an officiating basis because unless a person possesses the merit requisite for efficiency of administration he cannot be permitted to cross the efficiency bar and he can also not be confirmed on the post held by him on officiating basis. This would mean that person who possesses the requisite merit and efficiency for crossing the efficiency bar or for the purpose of confirmation, should also be treated to have the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration for promotion to the higher post on the basis of seniority-cm-merit. In my view, therefore, the decisions of the Full Benches of Orissa High Court in Venkatarao's case (supra) and Ram (sic Ramesh) Prasad's case (supra) as well as the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ram Singh Kalson v. State of Haryana (supra) and that of the Bombay High Court in Govind Sadasiv v. State of Maharashtra (supra), which have been given with reference to promotions on the basis of merit-cum-suitability cannot be applied to a case of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum- merit and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dewan Chunnilal (supra) would govern such a case." (underlining is ours)." 18. This decision has been upheld by a Division Bench which dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment of Agrawal J. 19. On the basis of these judgments the principle which can be deduced is that the conditions of service of employment should be formulated by the employer so as to maintain the balance between the advancement of career of individual employee and the efficiency of public service. This is necessary to avoid frustration amongst the employees which otherwise leads to demoralisation of the service and is ultimately counter productive. This is necessary to avoid frustration amongst the employees which otherwise leads to demoralisation of the service and is ultimately counter productive. While at the lower levels of the service, criteria for promotion should be seniority-cum-merit or seniority-cum-fitness or seniority-cum- suitability, at the higher levels merit and merit alone should be the yardstick. The criteria of seniority-cum-fitness or seniority-cum-merit has to be so applied that where a senior person possesses that element of merit which make him efficient for discharge of duties, his seniority must over-weigh better merit of a junior person. Element of comparative assessment of merit is absent when promotion is required to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. At the same time by adopting the criteria of merit or merit-cum-seniority for higher promotion, better and best can be chosen to serve the larger public interest. In this manner even those who are lower in the cadre will then strive for achieving excellence so as to fall within the zone of merit and become eligible for out of turn promotion. 20. In the light of the above principles we may examine the order passed by the Tribunal whereby it has upheld the supersession of the petitioner brought about by order dated, 2.5.81. The Tribunal has observed that the DPC cannot be said to have committed any mistake in not selecting the appellant (petitioner) for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer on account of adverse remarks. it has distinguished the decision dated, 2.11.82 given in appeal No. 400/81, Chand Mal Mittal v. State of Rajasthan (erroneously referred to as Chand Mal Porwal v. State of Rajasthan ). A close scrutiny of the order of the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal has not at all examined the record of the DPC and ACRs of the petitioner to decide as to whether supersession of the petitioner was justified. Discussion made by the Tribunal in regard to the question of fair consideration of the case of the petitioner is thoroughly arbitrary, casual and perfunctory. The Tribunal has proceeded to examine the appeal as if it was exercising a supervisory jurisdiction and not an appellate jurisdiction. Discussion made by the Tribunal in regard to the question of fair consideration of the case of the petitioner is thoroughly arbitrary, casual and perfunctory. The Tribunal has proceeded to examine the appeal as if it was exercising a supervisory jurisdiction and not an appellate jurisdiction. It has completely lost sight of the fact that its jurisdiction is co-extensive with that of the departmental promotion committee/the appointing authority, as has been laid gown by the division bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Aklank Jindal, 1982 L.I.C. 1848 . In the said case this Court had examined the ambit and scope of the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and held that the Tribunal can exercise those powers which are exercisable by the departmental promotion committee or by the appointing authority. In our opinion, the approach of the Tribunal is not consistent with the judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Aklank Jindal and is also contrary to the scheme of the Act of 1976. We wish to make it clear that the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal exercises appellate jurisdiction and not a supervisory jurisdiction as is exercised by the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 21. The Tribunal has also committed a serious error in completely over-looking an earlier decision rendered by it in appeal No. 400/81. It has brushed aside the earlier decision by one line observation that the facts of Chandmal's case are distinguishable and are not helpful to the appellant. That indeed, is a most unsatisfactory way of brushing aside a decision given in an appeal which raised more or less an identical question in relation to the same order dated, 2.5.81. A perusal of the order dated, 2.11.82 which has been placed on record as Anexure-4 shows that the Tribunal had in its order dated, 2.11.82 found supersession of the appellant Chand Mal Mittal as unjustified even though he had adverse entries which related to his performance as a Lecturer. If, in that case, the Tribunal formed the view the that the appellant Chand Mal ought not to have been superseded, it can be said with ample justification that the petitioner's case stood on a better footing and the Tribunal should have declared his supersession as arbitrary and unjust. 22. If, in that case, the Tribunal formed the view the that the appellant Chand Mal ought not to have been superseded, it can be said with ample justification that the petitioner's case stood on a better footing and the Tribunal should have declared his supersession as arbitrary and unjust. 22. Confidential reports of the petitioner which have been placed before us give the following pen-picture regarding the performance of the petitioner : S.N. Year Rating of performance Percentage of result 1 1969-70 Satisfactory 91.34% 2 1970-71 Satisfactory 96.00% 3 1971-72 Satisfactory 80.00% 4 1972-73 Satisfactory/average 90.20% 5 1973-74 Some adverse remarks 98.62% For the year 1972-73 some adverse remarks had been made but they were expunged on a representation made by the petitioner. For 1973-74 some adverse remarks were made and they were partly expunged. The only adverse remark retained in the A. C. R for the year 1974-75 is; HINDI MATTER 23. It is significant to notice that the reporting officer of the petitioner for the year 1972-73 and 1973-74 was the same person. In both years the reviewing and counter-signing officers have offered no comments regarding the conduct and efficiency of the petitioner. Respondents have neither pleaded nor have they shown that except the aforesaid minor adverse remark for the year 1973-74, the petitioner had any other adversity in the form of punishment or pending enquiry. It is, thus clear that the only reason which can be attributed to the supersession of the petitioner is the adverse remark which relate to his failure to do some minor duty other than teaching and his alleged habit of forming groups. Percentage of the results of classes taught by the petitioner indicate that it has by and large remained over 90%. Only in one year it has been below 90%. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that so far as his performance as a Teacher is concerned, there existed no adversity in his record. Whatever has been retained as an adverse entry does not have close nexus with the performance of the petitioner in discharge of his primary duty as a teacher. The Departmental Promotion Committee has totally failed to apply its mind to the record of the petitioner while declaring him unsuitable on the basis of such adverse entry. Whatever has been retained as an adverse entry does not have close nexus with the performance of the petitioner in discharge of his primary duty as a teacher. The Departmental Promotion Committee has totally failed to apply its mind to the record of the petitioner while declaring him unsuitable on the basis of such adverse entry. This minor adverse entry which did not have any direct relation with his teaching or his performance as Lecturer vis-a-vis students could not have, in our opinion, been made basis for superseding the petitioner. While recording this conclusion, we are conscious of the fact that the supersession of an employee in the services of the Government of Rajasthan has a permanent impact on his service career. Once a man is superseded by his junior person, he loses his seniority qua that junior person and thus he suffers throughout his remaining service career. Scheme of the Rules which regulate recruitment and conditions of service in the State of Rajasthan is not parallel to the scheme of the Rules which are applicable to the All India Services. In the latter category of service a person does not lose his seniority by supersession on one or the other occasion provided, he is subsequently promoted. A member of the All India Service regains his original seniority after his promotion, even if at one or the other time he may have been superseded by a junior person. In contract a Government servant in the State of Rajasthan suffers permanently if he is superseded once. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that DPC and other competent bodies should exercise greater care and caution before superseding a senior employee. 24. For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that supersession of the petitioner at the time of promotion as Senior Lecturer on the recommendation of the D. P. C. of 1981 was arbitrary and unreasonable and the petitioner has been denied a paid consideration resulting in violation of his right of equality in the matter of employment. 25. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated, 4.2.87 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal is declared illegal and it is hereby quashed. Supersession of the petitioner is also declared as illegal. 25. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated, 4.2.87 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal is declared illegal and it is hereby quashed. Supersession of the petitioner is also declared as illegal. The respondent Government is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Senior Lecturer in the light of the observations made hereinabove and issue necessary order within a period of four months of the submission of certified copy of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******