JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan C.J —The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is three fold : (i) The disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and ended in finding him guilty was vitiated by malafide, non-observation of rules of procedures and violation of principles of natural justice ; (ii) The denial of promotion to the petitioner to the posts of Post Graduate Teacher/Head Master/Principal II/Principal I from the due dates his juniors were promoted is based on the records comprising disciplinary proceedings and the adverse A.C. Rs and that the A.C. Rs. are vitiated by malafides on account of personal enmity between the petitioner and the Head Master ; (iii) The petitioner was wrongfully denied Senior Scale Salary though he was found fit by the D.P.C. for selection grade salary. 2. As regards the first complaint, two charges were framed against the petitioner in 1987. The first charge was that he dis obeyed the official orders of the Head Master and refused to take over the charge of articles of school furniture. The second charge was that he mis-guided the teachers against the Head Master and polluted the school atmosphere. In the inquiry he was found guilty initially and on appeal the order was set aside and matter was remanded for fresh disposal. After the fresh inquiry he was found guilty of the first charge when he was exonerated on the second charge. He filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the disciplinary authority but modified the punishment. In the report of the Inquiry Officer which is filed as Annexure P-15, the matter is discussed as follows : "The Presenting Officer contended that the main charge against Shri Bhatia was that he floated the orders of the Headmaster. The order dated 18-5-1987 was given in writing to Shri T.C. Bhatia to take over the charge of the school furniture from Mr. Wangpak, P.R.T. who was reportedly having many charges of school property. But Shri Bhatia refused to take over the charge and recorded the same m the Order Book itself. The refusal reads as follows : “As it is the duty of office to take charge of furniture and not of a teacher. So you are requested (to) give the furniture charge to some one who is regular here, It will be in the interest of the school. The refusal reads as follows : “As it is the duty of office to take charge of furniture and not of a teacher. So you are requested (to) give the furniture charge to some one who is regular here, It will be in the interest of the school. I am sorry.” Shri Bhatia in his defence stated that on receiving the order he approached the Headmaster and showed verbal helplessness As per his statement the Headmaster seemed to be satisfied with the logical reasons of his helplessness in taking over the charge and verbally asked him to write the same below the order saying that thus the matter would be "hushed up". But later, according to the accused Officer, the Headmaster referred the matter to the Headquarters that Shri Bhatia had disobeyed the orders whereas he (Shri Bhatia) had witted his helplessness on the Order Book in good faith and on the advice of the Headmaster. Thus according to him the question of misusing the Order Book does not arise not to speak of disobedience. The contention of the Accused Officer does not seem to be convincing and logical. From the cross-examination of Mr. Tharchin and Shri Bhatia himself it is evident that there was no love lost between the Headmaster and Shri Bhatia. The Headmaster had earlier made a complaint against him to the Headquarters and it can reasonably be inferred that Mr. Bhatia must have had some inkling of it. Therefore, he could not have acted on the advice of the Headmaster without giving a due thought to the consequences. Moreover, the language in which the refusal is couched makes it abundantly clear that it was not written on the advice of the Headmaster. It is not an expression of helplessness but of defiance taking shelter behind the usual practice that the furniture charge is under the clerk Had he acted on the advice of the Headmaster the wording of the refusal would have been more humble and he would have talked of his personal problems in taking over the charge rather than referring to the rule regarding holding the charge of furniture So, we can safely rule out the possibility that Shri Bhatia acted upon the advice of the Headmaster. It is quite revealing that in his explanation dated 19-10-1987 in reply to the Memo issued by the Secretary, C.T.S.A., he does not at all mention that he had been advised by the Headmaster to write his refusal on the Order Book. In fact, his explanation of the incident in his letter dated 19-10-1987 is entirely at variance with the stand taken by him now. It is significant to note that Shri Bhatia had held no charge of any school property even during the period of the previous Headmaster(s). It leads only to two possible conclusions : (i) that either he was not considered fit for lt9 or (ii) he was unwilling to hold any charge. The second possibility is much stronger, this only leads to the only logical conclusion that Shri Bhatia was unwilling to take over the charge as it meant more burden’ for him. The explanations offered by him are only after-thoughts to justify his refusal to carry out the legitimate order of the Headmaster. This was particularly unbecoming of him because he was the senior most teacher in the school and as such he should have shown a greater sense of responsibility and should have been a source of strength to the Headmaster. Shri T.C. Bhatia was the senior most teacher in the school having served under the Administration for about 23 years, He should have behaved with a due sense of responsibility, care and attention. Instead, he violated the rules and procedures he was expected to follow and make others follow during the absence of the Headmaster. He knew or ought to have known the propriety and results of his acts he cannot say, as he does, that he refused to carry out the orders in the interest of the school ; since it was neither within his competence nor his responsibility to decide what constituted the interest of the school. If he had any ideas about better rules procedures he should have proposed amendments but should not have refused to carry out the orders until the amendments proposed were given effect to by the competent authority. It is therefore conclusively proved that he disobeyed the orders of the Headmaster and failed to maintain devotion to duty,” 3. If he had any ideas about better rules procedures he should have proposed amendments but should not have refused to carry out the orders until the amendments proposed were given effect to by the competent authority. It is therefore conclusively proved that he disobeyed the orders of the Headmaster and failed to maintain devotion to duty,” 3. This report was accepted in toto by the Disciplinary Authority, In the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 13-1-1989, no reason has been given and there is no discussion with regard to the merits of the case. The Disciplinary Authority has observed that after taking into consideration the finding of the Inquiry Officer and having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case he was satisfied and agreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer. On appeal the Appellate Authority has not discussed the matter in any manner but simply observed that he had considered the appeal and after going through the facts of the case came to the conclusion that the petitioner is clearly found guilty to the charge framed against him. However, the Appellate Authority has set aside that part of the penalty which debarred the petitioner from promotion for three years while the penalty that the pay should be permanently brought down by three stages was confirmed. 4. On perusal of the report of the Inquiry Officer as well as order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, it is clear that the charge had been found against the petitioner without any evidence whatever. The discussion contained in the report of the Inquiry Officer shows that the only material placed before the Inquiry Officer was that the petitioner refused to take charge of the furniture article of the school. The petitioner has repeatedly contended before the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority that there was no rule that the furniture of the school should be taken charge of by the teachers. The petitioner has also pointed out that there was no order prescribing his duty as teacher and prescribing that he should take charge of the furniture. The petitioner has repeatedly contended before the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority that there was no rule that the furniture of the school should be taken charge of by the teachers. The petitioner has also pointed out that there was no order prescribing his duty as teacher and prescribing that he should take charge of the furniture. In the letter given to him by the Headmaster that he should take charge of the furniture from Shri Wangdak, Primary Instructor, the petitioner made an endorsement as follows on 18-5-1987 : "As it is the duty of the office to take charge of furniture and not of a teacher. So you are requested to give the furniture charge to someone who is regular here, It will be in the interest of the school. I am sorry," 5. The said letter is filed as Annexure R-1 with the reply of the respondent. At the top of the Annexure it is seen that the petitioner was on leave at that time His reply shows that in his opinion it will be in the interest of the school to entrust the furniture to somebody who is regularly attending the school That does not mean that he disobeyed the order of the Headmaster as such. Unless it is found by the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority that it was one of the duties of the petitioner to take charge of the furniture it cannot be said that he committed misconduct of disobedience of the order of the superior. 6. It is argued by the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel that it had been the practice in the school to entrust the furniture to the charge of teacher bat there is no such plea to that effect. There is nothing on record to show that there was such a practice in the school Previously Shri Wangdak was incharge of the furniture and it was not the regular practice that the teacher should hold the charge of the furniture. The charge of furniture is the part of the administration and the must be specific rules relating to the same as to who should be in charge of which part of the administration. A teacher is only on the academic side and normally he cannot be in charge of the furniture. The charge of furniture is the part of the administration and the must be specific rules relating to the same as to who should be in charge of which part of the administration. A teacher is only on the academic side and normally he cannot be in charge of the furniture. In the absence of any specific rules record or rule that a teacher should hold the charge of furniture, it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct as alleged in charge No 1 Hence the finding on charge No. l by the Inquiry Officer accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority is wholly unsustainable as there is no material whatever on record sustaining such finding Hence we quash the order passed by the Appellate Authority and Disciplinary Authority by which the petitioner was found guilty on charge No 1 and punished with reduction of pay permanently by three stages In view of the fact that there is long lapse of period between the punishment and this date, it is unnecessary to remand, the matter back to the Authorities to consider afresh. In the circumstances we quash the order of punishment passed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority on 13-1-1989 and Appellate Authority on 11-4-1989 as modified by order dated 20-4-1989. 7. The second question which arises for consideration is whether the denial of promotion is in accordance with law or vitiated by mala fides as alleged by the petitioner It is not in dispute that the post of Headmaster is a selection post and it is not a case of automatic promotion of the petitioner after putting in a particular number of years of service. The contention of the petitioner is that the denial of promotion is based on the adverse entries in the A C Rs and the conclusion in the Disciplinary proceedings. We are unable to accept this contention. As regards the Disciplinary proceeding it was not taken into account for the purpose of denial of promotion and the punishment is only to bring down his salary by three stages permanently and the reply filed by the petitioner is as follows : "3. Since the post of Headmaster, P.G.T. etc are selection post, the petitioner cannot claim the post of Headmaster or the post of P.G.T. automatically. Since the post of Headmaster, P.G.T. etc are selection post, the petitioner cannot claim the post of Headmaster or the post of P.G.T. automatically. However, the petitioner was not recommended for the post of P.G.T. even though he was considered by the D.P.C. Even he was called for interview for the post of Headmaster on 25th January, 1988 as direct recruit but he was not found suitable by the Selection Committee It is denied that the petitioner was involved falsely in departmental proceedings and that Shri Nathu Singh was biased or inimical towards him because he had represented against the appointment of Shri Nathu Singh as Headmaster, Central School for Tibetan, Kharapathar since these representations were duly considered on merit by the appointing authority and rejected.” "9. In 1984 there were lot of complaints from the Parent Teacher Association (Annexure R-17) and the then Secretary had ordered the Principal, Shri H.C. Tripathi to conduct inquiry against Shri T.C. Bhatia in this regard vide memorandum No. F 4-170/65 CTSA, dated 21-8-1984 (Annexure R-18), Then the petitioner was also issued a warning by the then Secretary to be more careful in future in attending the School vide Memorandom No F. 4-170/65-CTSA, dated 15-10 1984 (Annexure R-19) In the year 1984 the following adverse entries were recorded in his A.C.R by the then Secretary, Central Tibetan Schools Administration “An average worker and mostly away from the School and there was lot of complaints" (Annexure P 23) and these entries were communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. 4-40/87-CTSA, dated 18-9-1988 (Annexure P-23). He preferred an appeal which was rejected.” "11. It may be submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any promotion just on the basis of certain qualification acquired by him. The post of Post Graduate Teacher is filled by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of merit cum-seniority. Hence the petitioner cannot claim the promotion automatically. He preferred an appeal which was rejected.” "11. It may be submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any promotion just on the basis of certain qualification acquired by him. The post of Post Graduate Teacher is filled by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of merit cum-seniority. Hence the petitioner cannot claim the promotion automatically. The Departmental Promotion Committee in the meeting held on 4th April, 1988 considered the promotion case of Shri T.C. Bhatia, T.G.T. to the post of P.G.T. along with other eligible T.G.Ts, but Shri Bhatia, the petitioner was not recommended for promotion to the post of P.G.T. by the D. P.C It may further be submitted that the petitioner also appeared for an interview for the post of Headmaster but he was not selected as he was not found suitable by the Selection Committee in case of direct recruitment. All other incumbents referred to by the petitioner were found suitable for promotion by the D.P.C. and Selection Committee and were given promotion as per promotion Rules Hence the petitioner cannot claim his promotion just on the basis of the qualification and seniority, if he is not found suitable by the D.P.C. or Selection Committee." "12. As already stated, the petitioner cannot claim his promotion on the basis of qualification or length of service as the post of Headmaster is a selection post and a person can be promoted to such post only if he/she is found suitable and selected by the D. P C or Selection Committee in case of direct recruitment. The petitioner appeared for interviews and was also considered for promotion/selection for various posts but was not found suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It may be pointed out that the petitioner was asked to give his willingness for going to South as P.G.T. vide letter No. F. 4-170/65, CTSA, dated 13-11-1984 (Annexure P-36) but the petitioner did not give his willingness for going to Bylakupee as P.G.T. vide letter of even No dated 19-4-1995 (Annexure P-37) Shri Bhatia sent his willingness telegraphically and in reply to his telegram the Assistant Secretary General Tibetan Schools Administration vide his letter of even No. dated 27-4-1985 (Annexure P-38) intimated Shri Bhatia that his case for promotion will be considered in due course. Again Shri Bhatia vide his letter dated 31-7-1985 declined to go to South and wanted his posting at Central School for Tibetan, Dalhousie/Shimla (Annexure P-20) The petitioner has no cause of action and has no right to claim for promotion automatically. The promotion is granted on the basis of the performance of the employees and behaviour etc. Shi T.C Bhuttos case had also been considered for the post of Vice Principal and Headmaster of Middle School in 1977 by the D.P.C. but he was not recommended for appointment because there had been adverse report against the petitioner about his work and conduct and he was not found suitable the D.P.C./Selection Committee for promotion (Annexure R-21)." 8. The other question is whether the adverse entries in the A.C. Rs. are vitiated by mala fides According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the Headmaster under whom the petitioner was working from 1985 was inimical to him and all the troubles started only from 1985 and in fact in para 3 of the writ petition it is stated that the real trouble started from Central School for Tibetan, Shimla in July, 1985 when he joined as Trained Graduate Teacher. Allegations have been made against the Headmaster Shri Nathu Singh According to the petitioner the Headmaster was sending false complaint to the authorities against the petitioner. But it is seen that even in 1984 the adverse entries have been made against the petitioner in the A.C .Rs. and nothing can be said against the adverse entries made in 1984. Even assuming for the sake of arguments, the Headmaster under whom the petitioner started working in 1985, was inimically disposed towards him, there is no explanation as to why the entries in the A.C. Rs. in 1984 were made adversely against the petitioner. Annexure P-23 read with Annexure P-29 shows that the entries for the year 1984 in the A.C. Rs. were as follows : “An average worker and was mostly away from the school and there was a lot of complaint." 9. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner this was communicated to the petitioner only in 1985 and that itself would prove that the entry was made mala fide and that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to rectify himself if the entry in the A.C.R. was true. But similar entry was made in the subsequent years also. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner this was communicated to the petitioner only in 1985 and that itself would prove that the entry was made mala fide and that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to rectify himself if the entry in the A.C.R. was true. But similar entry was made in the subsequent years also. The entry was made against the petitioner in the year 1988. The following remarks were made in the A.C. Rs of the petitioner : "He never participated in any function. On 15th August and the birth day of His Holiness he was out of station. He never contributed in curricular and co-curricula, activities. He is not having so zeal as he is supposed to. Since when he comes back from leave he should take the extra classes to compensate the loss of studies to the students. He became hardly punctual. Since almost remained on leave He is suspicious nature. Inspite of making the things clear with the head he is of nature’ of give the shape of complaint to the things and wastes his energy in such things which can be used for the studies of the students " 10. The petitioner had made representations against the entries in the A.C. Rs. and his representation was accepted with regard to the year 1986 The remarks made against him for the year 1986 were expunged by the Chairman vice Annexure-30 That itself show that there was no mala fide on the part of the Higher Authority The Chairman had considered the representation of the petitioner and accepted the same with regard to one year while rejected the same with regard to other years. 11. in this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the judgment in Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and others, (1979) 2 SCC 368 Reliance is placed on the following passage in the judgment: "18. That an officer was not found suitable is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. That an officer was not found suitable is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for not bringing the appellant on the Select List. “19. In matters of this nature, particularly when the Select Lists have to be prepared and reviewed from year to year, it becomes difficult to work out the logical consequences of holding that the case of any particular officer ought to be reconsidered. But, inevitably, for reasons mentioned above, the case of the appellant shall have to be considered afresh by the Selection Committee How best to do it has to he left to its wise discretion in the matter of details, but in order to eliminate, in so far as one may, chances of yet another litigation we ought to indicate the broad frame-work within which the Committee should act and the preliminary steps which the Government must take in order to facilitate the committees task." The above ruling does not help the petitioner in this case. 12. Our attention is also drawn to the observation of the Supreme Court in Sukhdeo v Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and another, (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 103. It is seen from the facts of the case that the entries for the years 198-88 indicated that the appellant was an industrious man, his capacity to get work done by Subordinates was good, his relationship with the colleagues and the public was good, his general intelligence was satisfactory It was only with regard to the column of technical ability he was reported as not satisfactory though it was entered that special attitude is good, administrative ability including judgment initiative and drive not satisfactory, integriety and character were good. The question was whether the compulsory retirement of the appellant therein based on such entry was in accordance with law. The question was whether the compulsory retirement of the appellant therein based on such entry was in accordance with law. The Court found that in view of the other entries which were found in the confidential record the entry made in the column of technical ability as not satisfactory and initiative and drive were not satisfactory could not be sufficient to sustain the order of compulsory retirement The relevant observations of the Court are as follows : "6. It is settled law that when the Government resorts to compulsorily retire a Government servant, the entire record of service, particularly, in the last period of service is required to be closely scrutinised and the power would be reasonably exercised. In State of Bank India v. Kashinath Kher, JT at p 578-15, this Court has held that the controlling officer while writing confidential and character roll report, should be a superior officer higher above the cadres, of the officer whose confidential reports are written. Such officer should show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment without any prejudice whatsoever with highest sense of responsibility to inculcate in the officers devotion to duty, honesty and integrity so as to improve excellence of the individual officer, lest the officers get demoralised which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public service In that case it was pointed out that confidential reports written and submitted by the officer of the same cadre and adopted without any independent scrutiny and assessment by the committee was held to illegal. In this case, the power exercised is illegal and it is not expected of from that high responsible officer who made the remarks. When on officer makes the remarks he must eschew making vague remarks causing jeopardy to the service of the subordinate officer, He must bestow careful attention to collect all correct and truthful information and give necessary particulars when foe seeks to make adverse remarks against the subordinate officer whose career prospect and service were in jeopardy In this case, the controlling officer has not used due diligence in making remarks It would be salutary that the controlling officer before writing adverse remarks would give prior sufficient opportunity in writing by informing him of the deficiency he noticed for improvement. In spite of the opportunity given if the officer/employee does not improve then it would be an obvious fact and would form material basis in support of the adverse remarks. It should also be mentioned that he had given prior opportunity in writing for improvement and yet was not availed of so that it would form part of the record The power exercised by the controlling officer is per se illegal.” 13. It is evident that those observations were made by the Court in the context of the facts, the observation could not be torn out of the context and facts which have been referred to above earlier. 14. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.A. Rajasekar v. State of Karnataka and another, (1996) 10 SCC 369. The relevant facts have been set out in paragraphs of the judgment which read as follows : “4. Calling that in question, the appellant filed an OA, It is now settled law that the object of making adverse remarks is to assess the competence of an officer on merits and performance of an officer concerned so as to grade him in various categories as outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory and average, etc. The competent authority and the reviewing authority have to act fairly or objectively in assessing the character integrity and performance of the incumbent. It is seen that in the review order, various grounds on which the various criteria are to be complied with were specifically noted thus : “3. A perusal of Annexure A-l goes to show that in most of the aspects the work of the applicant is satisfactory According to the form in which the confidential remarks of the officers are to be written, the reporting officer is required to indicate his assessment of the officer on the following aspect of his work: 1. Knowledge of work ; 2. Power of expression ; 3. Power of acquiring general information ; 4. Attention to detail ; 7 5. Industry; 6. Judgment ; 7. Speed of disposal; 8. Willingness to accept responsibility and to take decision ; 9. Relationship with subordinates and colleagues ; 10. Public relations; 11. Integrity. The report about all the above aspects is satisfactory. There is no adverse report about integrity. However, the underlined remarks in Annexure -1 are made. Industry; 6. Judgment ; 7. Speed of disposal; 8. Willingness to accept responsibility and to take decision ; 9. Relationship with subordinates and colleagues ; 10. Public relations; 11. Integrity. The report about all the above aspects is satisfactory. There is no adverse report about integrity. However, the underlined remarks in Annexure -1 are made. The last sentence in those remarks indicates that the intention of the officer who wrote those remarks was to treat the remarks as advisory. He had stated that the officer should evince more interest When all the ten aspects of the work which are required to be assessed by the rules are satisfactory the alleged adverse remarks get considerably diluted and we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the remarks are treated as advisory with a direction that they should not be made use of against the applicant for any purpose." 15. In the light of those facts, the following observations are made in paragraph-5 : “5. It was found that his integrity was not doubled and his work also in all those respects was found to be satisfactory. Under those circumstances, the remark that he "does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma” roost be pointed out with reference to specific instance, in which he did not perform that duty satisfactorily so that he would have an opportunity to correct himself of the mistake. He should be given an opportunity in the cases where he did not work objectively or satisfactorily. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given. Even when he acted in a dilemma and lacked objectively, in such circumstances, he must be guided by the authority as to the manner in which he acted upon. Since this exercise has not been done by the respondents, it would be obvious that the above adverse remark was not consistent with law.” 16. Thus, it is clear that the observations, on which the reliance is placed by the learned Counsel, are made in view of the facts set out in para-4 of the judgment and the petitioner cannot make use of these observations in the present case. The contention of the petitioner that he was not given sufficient opportunity to rectify his conduct if the entries in the A.C. Rs. are true cannot be accented. The contention of the petitioner that he was not given sufficient opportunity to rectify his conduct if the entries in the A.C. Rs. are true cannot be accented. It is seen from the memorandum issued to the petitioner on 18-4-1988 that he was advised that he should remove these defects and improve his performance and the same was repeated in the memorandum dated 18-11-1988. 17. The next contention is that the rejection of the representation made by the petitioner that the order of punishment made against the petitioner does not contain any reason and that shows non-application of mind on the part of the authorities concerned. We are unable to accept this contention. It was not necessary for the authorities concerned to write a detailed judgment when they rejected the representation made by the petitioner. The records had been perused by the authorities and on the basis of the record they had taken the view that the representation of the petitioner was not acceptable, Hence there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner. We have already pointed out that the mala fides are alleged against the Headmaster under whom the petitioner was working since 1985 but no specific mala fide has been alleged against the Secretary or the Higher Authorities, though some vague allegations f have been made against the Secretary in the writ petition In the facts and circumstances, we cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that , the denial of promotion by the authorities concerned to the petitioner was based on either the conclusion of the Disciplinary proceedings or unit sustainable adverse entries in the A.C.R. We are unable to accept the (contentions of the petitioner that the adverse entries in the Acts are unsustainable as we are not setting in appeal. Hence the contention of the petitioner fails. 18. The last question that remains to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the senior scale of pay when he was found to be entitled to the selection grade. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the recommendations made by the D.P.C. on 16-7-1986 w.e.f. 1-1-1986 vide Annexure P-40 The petitioner was also found among others entitled to get selection grade w.e.f. 1-1-1986. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the recommendations made by the D.P.C. on 16-7-1986 w.e.f. 1-1-1986 vide Annexure P-40 The petitioner was also found among others entitled to get selection grade w.e.f. 1-1-1986. As per Annexure P-42 on the recommendation of the D.P.C certain other members of the staff including two persons who were found in the list given in Annexure P-40 were entitled to the senior scale of pay that order was passed on 26-4-1988 but w.e.f. 1-1-1986. The contention of the petitioner is that when the D.P.C. found the petitioner suitable for the grant of selection grade, it ought to have found him fit for the grant of senior scale from that date According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is no justification for denying the senior scale to the petitioner. 19. As regards this aspect of the matter in the reply filed by the respondent it is stated as follows : "13. The averments made in para No. 13 are denied as the petitioner has no cause of action and no right to claim the senior scale of automatically. The Selection Grade was awarded to 20% of the T.G.Ts but the same was withdrawn from all other teachers on the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission. In fact, the case of the petitioner for senior scale was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 29-3-1990 but he was not found suitable for the grant of senior scale by D.P.C. In accordance with the instruction issued by the Government of India from time to time the senior scale can be granted after screening regarding satisfactory performances by an appropriate Department Promotion Committee. The performance of the employee is judged on the basis of the confidential reports. Since D.P.C. did not recommend him for the senior scale, the petitioner was not found suitable for grant of senior scale in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 automatically." 20. No rule has been shown to us by the petitioner that when a person is found fit for selection grade he is automatically entitled to senior scale In the absence of rule, the petitioner as a matter of right is not entitled to the senior scale and the contention has to fail. 21. 1640-2900 automatically." 20. No rule has been shown to us by the petitioner that when a person is found fit for selection grade he is automatically entitled to senior scale In the absence of rule, the petitioner as a matter of right is not entitled to the senior scale and the contention has to fail. 21. In the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner it partly allowed and the order of the Disciplinary Authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, as already set out, is quashed. In other respects, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Petition partly allowed. -