JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant in this appeal has challenged the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3253/93 dated 21.7.1993. 2. The appellant joined the service as Lower Division Clerk on 20.8.1973 in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. For a pretty long time, he continued to discharge the functions of LDC and completed 15 years of service on the post of LDC. On completion of his service of 15 years, he was not considered for being granted selection grade as by the notification of the Finance Department, dated 14.3.1985, the posts for such consideration were restricted to 10% only. In the meanwhile, the appellant-petitioner was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 14.12.1989. 3. After the appellant was promoted as UDC on 14.12.1989, a circular was issued by the Finance Department being Circular No. G/20(90)FD/Gr.2/89 dated 19.12.1990. By this Circular the condition of 10% of the posts were relaxed and it was ordered that if the employee was eligible then from 1.9.1988 that employee could be granted selection grade. The appellant in pursuance to this notification staked his claim for being awarded selection grade. A representation was preferred by him and the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur decided his representation and held that the appellant had an adverse entry in his APR for the year 1984-85, and therefore, on the basis of that adverse entry, he was rightly not awarded the selection scale. Against the dismissal of his representation he preferred an appeal to the High Court, which was decided by a learned Judge of this Court on the administrative side vide its order dated Feburary 12, 1996. The appeal was allowed in part and the appellant was granted selection w.e.f. 16.12.1989, the date when he was promoted as UDC. Against this order, the appellant preferred a writ petition, praying that he should be granted selection grade from 1.9.1988, and not from the date of his promotion as UDC. This is an ineffective order as the lowest grade of UDC and that of the selection grade of LDC is same. 4. The learned Single Judge of this Court hearing the writ petition of the appellant considered that the entries in his APRs were adverse. This is an ineffective order as the lowest grade of UDC and that of the selection grade of LDC is same. 4. The learned Single Judge of this Court hearing the writ petition of the appellant considered that the entries in his APRs were adverse. They were communicated to him and they became final and if on the basis of those adverse entries, selection grade has been refused to the appellant, then there is nothing wrong in it, and therefore, rejected the writ petition. 5. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the Rajasthan High Court considering the appeal of the appellant on the administrative side had found the petitioner to be fit to be granted selection scale, though, from a later stage. No reasons have been assigned in this appellate order as to why the appellant is not entitled to be granted selection grade from 1.9.1988. If on the administrative side, the appellant has been thought to be fit to be granted selection grade from the assumed date by the appellate authority, then obviously, the appellate authority had applied its mind to the effect that the adverse entries for the year 1984-85 are not to be counted for the purposes of considering his case for grant of selection scale. As it appears from the reading of the adverse entries that they stand in isolation, without there being any preceding or subsequent adverse entry in the record of the appellant. The entries, though adverse in character were not considered to be weighty enough to deny the selection grade to the appellant, though, the appellate authority has granted it only from a later stage. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the order of the District Judge and of the Rajasthan High Court on its administrative as well as its judicial sides. If the appellant has been found fit to be granted selection grade, then the date could not be 16.12.1989. On this day though the appellant was granted the grade, but it was the lowest grade of UDC and therefore, order of the appellate authority was without any consequence. Such cannot be the intention of the appellate order which intended to give benefit to the appellant. On this day though the appellant was granted the grade, but it was the lowest grade of UDC and therefore, order of the appellate authority was without any consequence. Such cannot be the intention of the appellate order which intended to give benefit to the appellant. We, therefore, consider it proper that the date from which the selection grade is to be given, should be fixed as 1.9.1988 and to that extent order of the appellate authority deserves to be modified. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgments of the learned Single Judge and order of the District Judge are both set aside and the order of the appellate authority is also modified to the extent, wherein the date of grant of selection grade has not been given as to 1.9.1988. It is ordered that the selection grade be given to the appellant from 1.9.1988 with consequential benefits. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******