JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners in D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2812/96, 3086/96, 6208/96 and 4918/97 are the officers of Rajasthan Police Service (for short "R.PS.") while the petitioners in D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2545/96, 2675/96, 4726/96 (646/97) & 2963/96 are the officers of Rajasthan Administrative Services (for short "R.A.S.") who have moved this court by way of the aforesaid writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for their grievances in the matter of redressal & denial of promotional benefits as a result of improper placement in the respective order of seniority quo reserved category candidates & restoration of their consequential seniority & other benefits inaccordance with the Rules applicable to them. 2. R.P.S. Officers in Writ Petition No. 2812/96 and in other three connected writ petition Nos. 3086/96, 6208/96 & 4918/97 have sought directions from this Court for modification of the common seniority-list drawn by the respondents in the R.P.S. cadre issued on 30.6.1990 indicating the position of the respective candidates in the order of their respective seniority as on 1.7.1987 and also the subsequent seniority-list issued by the respondents in modification of the earlier seniority-list dated 1.7.1987 and also the subsequent seniority position of the candidates as a result of improper placement in their respective order of seniority in R.PS. cadre by the D.P.C's/review D.PC's convened from time to time on the strength of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab and others reported in JT 1996 (2) S.C. 727, 1996 Vol. 2 SCC 715 by not extending the benefit of consequential seniority to the petitioners who fall in general category consequent upon the extension of out of turn benefits as a result of accelerated promotions to the candidates belonging to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe while the petitioners and other similarly placed persons who are much senior to the other candidates in the reserved category who have been unlawfully deprived of their promotional avenues from R.PS. to I.PS. to I.PS. cadre of central service as a result of benefit of accelerated promotions as having been extended to the candidates falling in reserved quota of SC/ST categories for in excess of the prescribed percentage as fixed for reservation promulgated and followed by the State Government in violation of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short "Rules of 1989") read with the Indian Police (Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1955 (for short "Regulations of 1955") issued in pursuance of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (for short "Rules of 1954"), by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government of Rajasthan and the Union Public Service Commission and Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioners in R.P.S. cadre having been aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents in not making proper placement of the petitioners in respective order of their seniority qua reserved category candidates belonging to SC/ST and having not rectified the existing anomaly as apparent on the face of the impugned order dated 19.1.1996 in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) in which it has been clearly held that extending the benefit of accelerated promotions to the candidates belonging to the reserved category does not by itself extend the benefit of consequential seniority over and above general category candidates and the respondents, as a matter of fact, were duty bound to maintain running account of the candidates in respective order of their seniority on year to year basis and the impugned orders, dated 19.1.1996 and 2.2.1996 which were passed by the respondents in gross violation of the Rules and the guidelines of the apex court laid down in the above matter due to accelerated promotions having been given to the reserved category candidates has resulted in deprivation of fair opportunity of promotions to the petitioners in the selection and super time Scales of R.P.S. and to I.P.S. cadre and to further promotional posts in the said cadre. They have further sought direction from this court with regard to the circulars, Rules and the procedure adopted by the respondents in violation of Rules 8, 9, 28-A and 33 of the Rules of 1954 or any other circular issued by the respondents in accordance with the said Rules which provide for maintaining year to year account of vacancies for candidates of reserved category be also declared ultra-vires of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India in so far as the promotion to I.P.S. cadre and other higher posts falling in the said category in favour of such candidates qua the candidates belonging to the general category notwithstanding tie candidates belonging to the reserved category being junior in order o seniority to the general category candidates who rank senior to them from the dates of their respective appointments and the benefit of consequential seniority in the next promotional post having been extended by the respondents to such reserved quota candidates be declared illegal, ultra-vires of the aforesaid constitutional provisions and non-est in the eyes of law in view of the arbitrary and discriminatory approach adopted by the respondents in making recommendations for selection to higher posts from state to central service of the union pursuant to the recommendations of Rajasthan Public Service Commissions for short 'R.PS.C.' & Union Public Service Commissions for short 'U.PS.C.' in I.P.S. & I.A.S. respectively. 3. The petitioners who are officers belonging to category of R.A.S. in writ petition Nos. 2545/96 and other three connected writ petitions i.e. 2675/96, 4726/97 (646/97) & 2963/96 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have sought to challenge the vires of Rules 8 and 33 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1954") as being violative and ultra-vires of the provisions of Arts. 2545/96 and other three connected writ petitions i.e. 2675/96, 4726/97 (646/97) & 2963/96 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have sought to challenge the vires of Rules 8 and 33 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1954") as being violative and ultra-vires of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India consequent upon which the benefit of accelerated promotions to next promotional posts have been extended to the candidates belonging to reserved quota i.e. SC/ST for in excess of the prescribed percentage as fixed by the State Government which has resulted in deprivation of fair opportunity of promotional benefits to next higher posts to candidates belonging to general category as a result of the impugned orders passed by the respondents in gross violation of the criteria of reservation as prescribed under the Rules and in violation of roster system resulting in grave injustice to the petitioners who belong to the general category of the officers in R.A.S. The common grievance which they have all urged in their aforesaid writ petitions and highlighted by their learned counsel during detailed hearing at the Bar in short, is that private respondents Nos. 2 to 5 namely; Suraj Mal Meena, Shankarlal Verma, Ramkhilari Meena and Gurudayal Arya and likewise in other connected writ petitions were not only promoted prior to the date when the promotion was actually due for said posts to the petitioner contrary to the Rules but were also extended the benefit of promotion to the Selection, Scale and super-time scales and where illegally conferred of the benefit of seniority by virtue of accelerated promotions resulting in deprivation of fair and legitimate benefits due to the petitioners who belong to general category in gross violation of Rule 33 of the Rules 1954 contrary to the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the case of Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab & Ors. (supra). The petitioners have accordingly sought direction from this court not only for restoration of the seniority due to them from the date when their immediate juniors, i.e., respondent Nos. (supra). The petitioners have accordingly sought direction from this court not only for restoration of the seniority due to them from the date when their immediate juniors, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were promoted by superseding the petitioners in Selection Scale of R.A.S. and further promotion to the I.A.S. or Supertime Scale irraccordance with Rule 33 of the Rules of 1954 and have sought to -hallenge the impugned actions of the respondents in having extended the ;aid benefits to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as arbitrary and being violative of Rule 33 of the Rules of 1954 which they have sought to be declared as ultra- ires of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. They have further sought direction from this court to declare the impugned actions of the respondents with regard to the benefit of out of turn promotions extended to respondents No. 2 to 5 and other similarly placed reserved category candidates in connected writ petitions in violation of roster system which obviously cannot confer on them any preferential right to be considered for further promotions on the next promotional posts fro, a the general category seats and henceforth the promotions to be made as regards the general category candidates should strictly on the basis of original panel and seniority position as prepared in accordance with the Rules and in this respect the inter-se seniority of the general category candidates qua the reserved category candidates should not be affected by virtue of out of turn and favoured promotions to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and other similarly placed reserved category candidates. They have further urged their grievance that as a result of. out of turn promotions given to the reserved category candidates for and in excess of the prescribed percentage as per the policy of State Government and as envisaged under Rule 8 of Rules of 1954 cannot be the basis for disturbing the seniority of general category candidates on the original panel and consequently cannot confer any benefit of seniority to the private respondents over and above their erstwhile seniors in the panel. Hence they have sought declarations to the effect that Rule 33(1) of the Rules of 1954 in so far as it provides for determination of seniority on a promotional post on the basis of regular selection to such posts, be declared null and void and ultra-vires of Arts. Hence they have sought declarations to the effect that Rule 33(1) of the Rules of 1954 in so far as it provides for determination of seniority on a promotional post on the basis of regular selection to such posts, be declared null and void and ultra-vires of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and the proviso (iii) to Rules 33(1) of the Rules of 1954 be declared ultra-vires of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently the out of turn accelerated promotions to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as also to other reserved category candidates made in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1954 shall not confer any benefit to the candidates belonging to SC/ST category on account of accelerated seniority and the original panel position of the petitioners over and above respondent Nos: 2 to 5 and likewise the petitioners in connected writ petition Nos. 3086/96, 6208/96 & 4918/97 have also challenged the benefit of out of turn promotions extended to private respondents belonging to reserved category who were junior to the said petitioners if reckoned from their respective dates of appointment in R.P.S. and hence not entitled to be benefit of accelerated promotions extended to them in violation of the Rules. Hence, they have sought the relief of restoration of their respective seniority and proper placement as per their entitlement in accordance with the Rules by drawing up a fresh common seniority list in accordance with the Rules by convening a Selection Committee/Review D.P.C. the earliest. 4. Since the relief sought for by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions belonging both to R.P.S. and R.A.S. cadres is common, as well as the questions of law raised by the petitioners are alsp identical, the challenge to the relevant Rules on the subject is also identical, the declaration sought for from this court being equally identical, we deem it appropriate to deal with and decide the aforesaid writ petitions by this single common order. 5. For the sake of convenience and ready reference. we deem it appropriate to treat writ petition No. 2812/1996-B.K. Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & others (R.P.S.) as well as writ petition No. 2545/1996- D.K. Vijay v. State of Rajasthan & others (R.A.S.) as the main cases. 6. 5. For the sake of convenience and ready reference. we deem it appropriate to treat writ petition No. 2812/1996-B.K. Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & others (R.P.S.) as well as writ petition No. 2545/1996- D.K. Vijay v. State of Rajasthan & others (R.A.S.) as the main cases. 6. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2812/96 consequent upon their selections by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the `Commissions') in R.P.S. examination held in the year 1972-73, the petitioners after having been declared successful were initially appointed as Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Rajasthan Police Service vide order, dated 17.3.1973. The name of the petitioner B.K. Sharma was placed at serial No. while Suresh Chandra Vyas was placed at serial No. 3 in order of merit as per the merit list prepared by the commission as is evident from the-aforesaid order. From amongst private respondent Nos. 5 to 12 namely, Ms. Badam Bairwa, Chunnilal, Jagdish Chandra Kanawat, Prahlad Jevaria, Jaganlal Meena, Madan Lai Dahiya, Bhagwati Prasad Verma and Hari Ram Meena were also declared successful candidates in R.P.S. examination held in the year 1972-73 though their appointment was later in point of time than the petitioners as is evident from their appointment orders dated 24.11.1973, 5.4.1974, 21.12.1974, 20.3.976, 23.3.1973 and 17.12.1979 respectively and consequently the candidates like Hari Ram Meena and Ms. Badam Bairwa who belong to ST and SC category respectively were inducted in the R.P.S. cadre after around six years of their selection and appointment of the petitioners in the R.P.S. cadre. The petitioners were confirmed in the cadre of R.P.S. officers consequent upon their having successfully completed their probationary period and were promoted to the senior scale as Additional Superintendents of Police w.e.f. 30.6.1982. The names of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 appeared at serial Nos. 10 and 11 respectively in the order of promotion to the senior scale vide order, dated 30.6.1982. Subsequently the petitioners were confirmed in the senior scale of R.P.S. officers vide order, dated 16.4.1984 and were placed at serial Nos. 16 and 17 respectively. 7. The names of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 appeared at serial Nos. 10 and 11 respectively in the order of promotion to the senior scale vide order, dated 30.6.1982. Subsequently the petitioners were confirmed in the senior scale of R.P.S. officers vide order, dated 16.4.1984 and were placed at serial Nos. 16 and 17 respectively. 7. Before dealing with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to indicate that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions before learned Single Judge of this Court, amendments in R.P.S. and R.A.S. Rules, 1954 were made vide Notification dated 1.4.1997 vide Annexure 12 in D.B. C.W.P. No. 2812/96, challenge to which has also been made in connected writ petitions by the respective petitioners. In pursuance of the said Notification benefits of conferring consequential seniority was added in all State Civil Service Rules in favour of the candidates belonging to the reserved category including SC/ST category candidates. The said notifications provides as under "in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following amendment in the various Service Rules as specified in the Schedule appended hereto from the date of issue, namely AMENDMENT After the existing last provision of Rule as mentioned in column No. 3 against each of the Service Rules as mentioned in column No. 2 of the Schedule appended hereto the following new proviso at the next serial number shall be added, namely "That if a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is promoted to an immediate higher post/grade against a reserved vacancy earlier than his senior general/OBC candidate who is promoted later to the said immediate higher post/grade. the general/OBC candidate will regain his seniority over such earlier promoted candidate of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the immediate post/grade." 8. the general/OBC candidate will regain his seniority over such earlier promoted candidate of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the immediate post/grade." 8. To the utter shock and surprise of the petitioners, it has been contended that by placing erroneous interpretation to the aforesaid amendment the State respondents instead of restoring the benefit of original seniority position to the petitioners, extended the said benefit to the private respondents by giving them out of turn/accelerated promotions notwithstanding that they were much junior in their respective orders of appointment to the general category candidates who were appointed earlier in point of time and thus ranked senior to them and necessary rectification/modification as required by the rules was not done by the respondents thereby adversely jeopardising the service career of the petitioners and the benefit of original seniority was not restored to the petitioners which has given rise to the filing of the aforesaid writ petitions before this Court. 9. During the course of hearing, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. v. State of Punjab & others (supra) was not followed by the respondents inasmuch as, contrary to the directions and the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision, out of turn/accelerated promotions were extended to the private respondents in all the aforesaid writ petitions without revising the seniority list of R.P.S. and R.A.S. candidates issued by the State Government which are now under challenge before us. It was further contended that the seniority list in R.P.S. Cadre issued on 30.6.1990 showing the positions of the candidates as on 1.7.1987 and subsequent seniority lists were issued without modifying earlier seniority list contrary to the guidelines of the apex court in Ajit Singh's case (supra) by not conferring the benefit of consequential seniority as a result or accelerated promotions extended to SC/ST category candidates while the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates who ranked much senior to the private respondents both in R.P.S. and R.A.S. cadre, respectively have adversely suffered as a result thereof by having got promotions to the higher grade in I.P.S. and I.A.S. respectively. It has further been contended that even though the SC/ST candidates who were much junior in rank as is apparent from the detailed chart showing respective seniority position of the petitioners qua reserved category candidates i.e. private respondents obviously ranked much junior to the petitioners vide Schedule A, Part-I and II, respectively to D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2812/96 which is reproduced herein below for ready reference S.No. Name Date of appointment in junior Date of promotion in Snr. Scale Seniority position in Snr. Scale as on 1.7.87 Date of promotion in selection scale 1. B.K. Sharma 17/20.3.73(at Sr 1 in order) 30.6.82 13 (Seniority) 2. S.C. Vyas 17.3.73(at Sr. 3 in order) 30.6.82 14 " 2.5.89 3. Madan Lai Dahiya (SC) 17/23.3.73(at No.11 in order) 10.8.81 9" 22.4.88 4. Chunni Lai(SC) 24.11.73 2.9.81 32" 7.3.86 5. J.C. Kanwat(ST) 5.4.74 4.8.81 33" 7.3.86 6. Prahlad Rai(SC) 21.12.74 30.6.82 34" 7.3.86 7. Jaganlal Meena(ST) 20.3.76 30.6.82 35" 7.3.86 8. Bhagwati Prasad Verma(SC) 23.11.77 - 39" 27.4.89 9. Hariram Meena(ST) 17.10.79 8.1.86 48" 27.4.89 10. Ms. Badam Bairwa(SC) 17.10.79 13.1.86 49" 27.4.89 SCHEDULE A, PART -1 S.No. NAME SC/ST ORDER NO. DATE BASIS 1. Nathilal SC F.3(A)(1) Hom/GVI/77 16.12.81 Seniority-cum-merit 2. Data Ram Sc -do- 16.12.81 -do- 3. Mahaveer Prasad Sc F.(V)(1) Hom/GVI/84 7.3.86 -do- 4. Laxmi Narain Meena ST -do- 7.3.86 -do- 5. Chunnilal SC -do- 7.3.86 -do- 6. Jagdish Kanwat ST -do- 7.3.86 -do- 7. P.R. Jevaria SC -do- 7.3.86 -do- 8. Jagan Lai Meena ST -do- 7.3.86 -do- 9. Madan Lai Dahiya SC F.V(1)Hom/GVD/84 22.4.84 -do- 10. Bhagwati Prasad Verma SC FV Hom/GVD/88 (1) 27.4.89 -do- 11. Hariram Meena ST -do- 27.4.89 -do- 12. Badam Bairwa Sc -do- 27.4.89 -do- SCHEDULE A PART II 10. From the perusal of the above chart it is evidently clear that the petitioners are admittedly much senior in terms of their respective their dates of appointment qua private respondents belonging to SC/ST category and hence the said private respondents have obviously no legal right vested in them to claim the benefit of 'consequential seniority' which they have obtained unlawfully as a result of accelerated promotions extended to them to which they are not entitled in accordance with the rules. Law has been so well settled by the apex court in the matter of Ajit Singh's case (supra) that the accelerated promotions extended to SC/ST category candidates does not entitle them to claim the benefit of 'consequential seniority' over and above general category candidates and we are thus of the view that this benefit has unlawfully has been extended to them vide impugned order dated 19.1.1996 as a result of erroneous interpretation to the relevant rules on the subject more particularly Rules 8, 9, 28-A and 33 of the Rules of 1954 and the Circulars issued in pursuance thereof providing reservation in accordance with the roster which was directed to be maintained earlier In pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Fateh Chand Soni's case (supra) and in view of the later decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Januja's case (supra) clarifying the earlier decision of the apex court in FC Soni's case, we are of the view that the respondents have obviously committed illegality by giving accelerated promotions to the private respondents belonging to SC/ST category in gross violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. read with relevant rules, on the subject, as referred to above. This fact is also borne out from the impugned seniority list which was issued by the respondents on 24.4.97 vide Annexure-14 to DBCWP No. 2812/96 as well as in other connected writ petitions from which it is apparent that the candidates belongings to SC/ST category who ranked much junior to the petitioners have been shown senior to them although such candidates are much junior in their respective order of seniority in terms of their original panel position and the promotions have been made in the I.P.S. cadre from R.P.S. and in I.A.S. from R.A.S. cadre, respectively, by giving them out of turn/accelerated promotions to which they were not lawfully or legitimately entitled. 11. 11. We are of the view that the contentions of the petitioners as regards their promotion against the vacancies of 1990-91 in the Selection super-time Grades of R.P.S. vide order dated 23.4.1997 (Annexure-13) while in the seniority list dated 24.4.97 (Annexure-14), the rule of giving the benefit of consequential seniority has not been extended to the petitioners and as a result of which they have been incorrectly shown junior to the private respondents contrary to the guidelines of the apex court in above referred decisions. 12. During the course of hearing, it was vehemently contended at the bar by-the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have grossly violated the guidelines and the policy of the State Government in the s matter of reservation since out of 22 candidates in selection scale of R.P.S. atleast 11 candidates belonging to SC/ST category have been extended the benefit of accelerated promotions which is more than the stipulated percentage i.e. 28 percentage as regards the benefit of reservation to SC/ST category candidates prescribed in the R.PS. Rules, 1954. 13. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to refer and reproduce the relevant rules on the subject i.e. Rules 8, 9, 28-A and 33 of the Rules of 1954 "R.8-Reservation of vacancies for the Scheduled Castes and the 5 Scheduled Tribes-1. Reservation of vacancies for the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes shall be in accordance with the orders of the Government for such reservation in force at the time of recruitment i.e. by direct recruitment and by promotion. R.9-Determination of vacancies 1. (a) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the Appointing Authority shall determine on 1st April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. R.9-Determination of vacancies 1. (a) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the Appointing Authority shall determine on 1st April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. R.28(A) "Revised Criteria, Eligibility and Procedure for Promotion to Junior, Senior and other posts encadred in the service (1) As soon as the Appointing Authority determines the number of vacancies under rule regarding determination of vacancies of these Rules and decides that a certain number of posts are required to be filled in by promotion, it shall, subject to provisions of sub-rule (9), prepare a correct and complete list of the senior-most persons who are eligible and qualified under these Rules for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or on the basis of merit to the class of posts concerned. (2) The persons enumerated in Column 5 or the relevant Column regarding "post from which promotion is to be made", as the case may be, of the relevant Schedule shall be eligible for promotion to posts specified against them in Column 2 thereof to the extent indicated in Column 3 subject to their possessing minimum qualification and experience on the first day of the month of April of the year of selection, as specified in column 6 or in the relevant Column regarding "minimum qualification and experience for promotion", as the case may be. "Provided that for first promotion in the Service if number of persons substantively appointed and confirmed on the lowest post, equal to the number of vacancies are not available then persons who have been appointed to the lowest post in the Service after selection in accordance with one of the methods of recruitment prescribed under these rules, shall also be eligible if they fulfil other conditions of eligibility." (Proviso added vide Notification No. F. 7(8) D.O.P./A-II-78 dated 13.5.1980) (3) No person shall be considered for first promotion in the Service unless he is substantively appointed and confirmed on the lower post in the Service. After first promotion in the Service, for subsequent promotions to higher posts in the Service, a person shall be eligible if he has been appointed to such post from which promotion is to be made after selection in accordance with one of the methods of recruitment under any Service Rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India." Sub-rule (3) substituted for (3) No person shall be considered for promotion unless he is substantively appointed and confirmed. If no person substantive in the next lower post is eligible for promotion, persons who have been appointed on such posts on officiating basis after selection in accordance with one of the methods of recruitment or under any Service Rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, may be considered for promotion on officiating basis only in the order of seniority in which they would have, had they been substantive on the said lower post." (vide Notification No. F. 7(8) D.O.P./A-11/78 dated 20.7.1979)" R.33 "Seniority"-Seniority of persons appointed to the lowest post of the Service or lowest categories of posts in each of the Group/Section of the Service, as the case may be, shall be determined from the date of case may be, shall be determined from the date of confirmation of such persons to the said post but in respect of persons appointed by promotion to other higher posts in the service or other higher categories of posts in each of the group/section in the service, as the case may be, shall be determined from the date of their regular selection to such posts.,' Substituted for rule-S.33. Seniority-Seniority in the service shall be determined by the date of order of appointment to the service vide Notification-No. F.1 (49) Home/Gr.-1/73 dated 7.5.1976. Provided (1) that the seniority inter-se of persons appointed to the Service before commencement of these Rules shall be as has already been fixed by Government, or may be fixed in future in accordance with the rule already issued in this behalf or on ad hoc basis. Substituted for the words "(i) that the seniority inter- se of the persons appointed to the Service before the commencement of these Rules shall be such as may be fixed by Government." vide Notification No. F 8(3) Int/A/52 dated 12.1.57 and F.10 (15) Apptts/C/53, dated 26.9.58. Substituted for the words "(i) that the seniority inter- se of the persons appointed to the Service before the commencement of these Rules shall be such as may be fixed by Government." vide Notification No. F 8(3) Int/A/52 dated 12.1.57 and F.10 (15) Apptts/C/53, dated 26.9.58. (ii) that the seniority inter-se of persons appointed to the Service on the result of one and the same examination, except those who do not join the service when a vacancy is offered to them, shall follow the order in which they have been placed in the list prepared by the Commission under rule 25; "(iii) That the persons selected and appointed as a result of a selection, which is not subject to review and revision, shall rank senior to the persons who are selected and appointed as a result of subsequent selection. Substituted for "(iii) that the seniority inter-se of persons appointed to the Service by promotion during the same year shall follow the order in which they have been placed in the list prepared by Government under rule 28 (1'2); "vide Notification No. F7(10) D.O.P./A-11/77 dated 17.6.78. (iv) Among persons appointed after the commencement of these rule to the Service within the same period of 12 months by direct recruitment or promotion (% omitted) shall rank senior to persons appointed by direct recruitment. Substituted for the words "(vi) that if two or more persons are appointed to the Service on the same date, the persons appointed by direct recruitment shall be junior to the persons appointed by special selection or by promotion". vide No. F 8(3) Int/A/52, dated 12.11.57 and F.10 (15) Apptts/C/53, dated 26.9.58. (v) Deleted (v) "That the seniority inter-se of persons selected as a result of one and the same selection and appointed on the basis of merit alone shall be in the same order in which_their names appear in the select list, irrespective of the period of continuous officiation." vide Notification No. E7(10) D.O.P./A-11/77 dated 17.6.78." 14. (v) Deleted (v) "That the seniority inter-se of persons selected as a result of one and the same selection and appointed on the basis of merit alone shall be in the same order in which_their names appear in the select list, irrespective of the period of continuous officiation." vide Notification No. E7(10) D.O.P./A-11/77 dated 17.6.78." 14. From the perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is apparent that the reservation of vacancies for SC/ST category candidates have to be determined by adopting both methods i.e. by direct recruitment as well as by promotion after taking into consideration the total number of vacancies available for the said candidates for direct recruitment as well as the candidates due for promotion as the next higher post as against the said vacancies by adopting the criteria of 'seniority-cum-merit and while considering the candidature of such candidates who are due for promotion to the next higher post, the criteria of 'merit-cum-suitability' as well should also not have been ignored by the respondents keeping in view of their service record while adjudging the suitability of such candidates for promotion to next higher post from amongst the eligible candidates due for such promotion. Instead of adopting the said criteria, the respondents have in gross violation of the aforesaid rules, extended the benefit of out of turn and accelerated promotions to the candidates belonging to SC/ST category i.e. the private respondents without modifying the earlier seniority lists which are under challenge before us in the aforesaid writ petitions. The common grievance of all the petitioners is that the benefit of accelerated promotions to the next higher promotional post have been extended to the candidates belonging to reserved quota i.e. SC/ST candidates for in excess of prescribed percentage as fixed by the State Govt. which has resulted in deprivation of fair opportunity of promotional benefits to the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of the impugned orders passed by the respondents from time to time in gross violation of criteria of reservation as prescribed under the rules and in violation of roster system resulting in great injustice to the petitioners who all belong to the general category of officers in R.P.S. and R.A.S. cadres, respectively qua the private respondents belonging to SC/ST categories. The petitioners have accordingly sought directions from this Court not only for restoration of their consequential seniority due to them form the date when their immediate juniors were promoted by superseding the petitioners in selection scale and Super time scale of R.P.S. and R.A.A. cadres, respectively from which they have been promoted to I.P.S. and I.A.S. contrary to the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 and Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules, 1954 as referred to above. 15. We have examined the ratio of rules 8, 9, 28A and 33 of the R.P.S. Rules of 1954 which are para-materia the same as in the corresponding rules of R.A.S. Rules, 1954 hence, we need not refer to R.A.S. Rules, 1954 for the sake of brevity and in order to avoid the repetition. 16. As regards the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that while there is no dispute regarding giving the benefit of Selection/Supertime grades to R. RS. and R.A.S. officers, respectively which is a promotion as held in FC. Soni's case (supra) by the apex court but treating the said persons who got benefit of accelerated promotions on the strength of their belonging to SC/ST category by making them senior to the general category candidates on the promotional posts in our considered view are per-se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and hence not tenable since in FC. Sonis case the apex court had never intended to convey this message to public at large that by virtue of accelerated promotions the SC/ST candidates shall rank senior to the general category candidates who were appointed earlier in point of time shall rank senior to them in the matter of determining their eligibility for next higher promotional post apart form the criteria of merit and seniority which in our view, is equally relevant and important consideration for determining the eligibility of respective candidates for promotional posts apart from their good and unblamished service record. 17. 17. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State while controverting the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners vehemently contended at the bar that the private respondents of SC/ST category were appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Rajasthan Police Service after selection by R.P.S.C. and the candidates namely; Shri J.C. Kanwat (SC), respondent No. 6 in CWP No. 3068/96, was appointed on 5.4.1974 while respondent No. 4 in the said writ petition who is SC candidate was appointed on 24.11.1973, Shri PR. Javeria (SC) respondent No. 7 was appointed on 21.12.1974, Shri Jagan Pal Meena (ST), respondent No. 5 was appointed on 20.3.1976 and Ms. Badam Bairwa (SC), respondent No. 11 was appointed on 17.10.1979. It was further contended that the seniority list of selection and senior scales in the cadre of R.P.S. Officers was issued as a result of the recommendations of revised D.P.S. The said seniority lists were issued on 1.1.1978, 1.10.1979, 1.12.1980, 1.3.1983, 1.1.1985 and 1 7.1987 and finally on 30.6.1990 after drawing the said seniority list as a result of the Review D.P.C. 18. During the course of hearing, much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the parties on the judgments of the apex court in the matter of F.C. Soni v. State of Rajasthan (Division Bench's Judgment) decided on 21.9.1993 reported in 1995 (4) S.L.R. 135 wherein, the learned Division Bench on the basis of the pleadings and the submission made at the bar, had the question of law was formulated was as to whether their is/are any separate post/posts in selection scale under the scheme of the Rules of 1954 or it is only a question of placing certain senior scale officers in selection scale i.e. in higher pay scale? The petitioners have sought to challenge and raise the following questions "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, (ii) 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. (iii) The respondents Nos. 1 & 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 1 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. (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 28% and not more than 28% in accordance with the existing scheme of the rule made under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India." 19. The grievance of the petitioner in F.C. Soni's case was that he had been granted selection scale w.e.f. 24.1.1991 while the officers who were junior to him in the matter of appointment had been granted the said scale from prior an earlier dates than 24.1.1991 resulting the gross discrimination and disadvantage to the petitioner who was a general category candidate while the private respondents belonging to the reserved quota and were entitled for reservation to the extent of 28% only in accordance with the existing scheme of the rules made in accordance with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As regards Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India with reference to Rule 8 of the Rules of 1954 it was held that the said constitutional provision enabled the State to make provision for reservation in the matter of appointment or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services of 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 to the backward class of citizens in the State Services with reference to the scheme of R.P.S. Rules, 1954 as read in consonance with Article 16(4) and proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 20. The obvious conclusion which emerges for our consideration is that while nothing prevents the State for making any reasonable provision with regard to the extent of reservation in the matter of appointments in favour of any backward class of citizens which in its opinion is not adequately represented in services of the Union or the State, but the said benefit should only be as regards the prescribed quota-i.e. fixed percentage in accordance with the policy of Union/State Govt. which in the instant case was not to exceed 28% in favour of SC/ST category candidates and the said benefit of reservation is in the matter of appointments to the posts i.e. initial entry in service and this benefit cannot be construed in the matter of promotion to the promotional posts for which the criteria of seniority-cum-merit should only be adopted apart from good and unbiamished service record and not the criteria that a particular candidate belongs to SC/ST category and hence should not be held entitled for being extended the promotional benefits by virtue of accelerated and out of turn promotions over and above general category candidates as has happened in the aforesaid writ petitions. It was held by the learned Division Bench of this Court that the grant of selection scale to the R.PS. Officers does not tantamount of promotion with reference to Rule 33 of the Rules of 1954 and as per the scheme of the rules. the seniority has to be considered with reference to each category of posts included in Schedule 1 and Schedule 1-A, respectively of the Rules of 1954. Officers does not tantamount of promotion with reference to Rule 33 of the Rules of 1954 and as per the scheme of the rules. the seniority has to be considered with reference to each category of posts included in Schedule 1 and Schedule 1-A, respectively of the Rules of 1954. It was further held that there was no separate post of Additional Superintendent of Police in the selection scale and since it was only a case of granting the selection scale to certain members of holders of the posts of Additional Superintendents in the senior scale and since it does involve any promotion, to grant a selection scale cannot have any indelible impact and rather no impact at all on the seniority and consequently an officer who was otherwise senior cannot be made to suffer any loss of seniority, merely because selection scale was given to his juniors by treating the grant of selection scale as promotion against so called reserved vacancies or otherwise it was held that the grant of selection scale does not involve any promotion. 21. This view of the learned Division Bench of this Court was challenged in appeal before the apex court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. F.C. Soni reported in 1996 (1) SLR 1 . The apex court while reversing the aforesaid decision of this Court, held as under "The High Court, in our opinion, was not right in holding that promotion can only be to a higher post in the service and appointment to a higher scale of an officer holding the same post does not constitute promotion. In the literal sense the word "promote" means "to advance to a higher position, grade, or honour". So also "promotion" means "advancement or preferment in honour, dignity, rank or grade". (See : Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition, P1009). "Promotion" thus not only covers advancement to higher position or rank but also implies advancement to a higher grade. In Service law also the expression "promotion" has been understood in the wider sense and it has been held that "promotion" has been understood in the wider sense and it has been held that "promotion" can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post." 22. In Service law also the expression "promotion" has been understood in the wider sense and it has been held that "promotion" has been understood in the wider sense and it has been held that "promotion" can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post." 22. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the decision of three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab and ors. 1996 (2) S.C.C. 715 decided on 1.3.1996 , the Union of India v. Virpal Singh : 1995 (7) J.T. (SC) 231 , Madan Lal Duggal v. State of Haryana 1996 (3) SCT 638 , Bhup Singh v. State of Haryana : 1996 (1) SCT 804 , Dr. Raja Ram v. State of Bihar : 1996 (5) JT (SC) 393 , R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab : 1995 (2) JT (SC) 351 , Indra Sawhney v. Union of India : AIR 1993 (SC) 477 , Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmchari Sangh v. Union of India : AIR 1996 (SC) 3534 , R. Dayal v. State of Rajasthan 1996 (3) WLC 513 , State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal : 1997 (3) JT (SC) 198 , Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India : AIR 1974 (SC) 1631 , Union of India v. K.S. Subramanin : AIR 1976 (SC) 2433 , Karnataka State Electricity Board v. N. Sukesend : AIR 1996 (SC) 2525 and Mohd. Hasan v. State of U.P.: 1997 (1) JT (SC) 353 and 384. 23. Besides the above, learned counsel representing the private respondents placed reliance upon the following decisions R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab : 1995 (2) SCC 745 , State v. Fateh Chand Soni : 1996 (1) SCC 562 , Smt. Somawanti v. State of Punjab and ors. Hasan v. State of U.P.: 1997 (1) JT (SC) 353 and 384. 23. Besides the above, learned counsel representing the private respondents placed reliance upon the following decisions R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab : 1995 (2) SCC 745 , State v. Fateh Chand Soni : 1996 (1) SCC 562 , Smt. Somawanti v. State of Punjab and ors. AIR 1963 SC 151 , Devilal v. Sales Tax Officer : AIR 1965 SC 1150 , T.G. Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 SC 974 , Sub- Inspector Sadhan Kumar Goswami v. Union of India : 1997 (2) SCC 225 , Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT : 1987 (1) SCC 5 , Avinash Nagra v. Navodayala Vidyalaya Samiti : 1997 (2) SCC 534 , Teja Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh : AIR 1982 P & H 169 , Lalkhani v. Malkapur Municipality : AIR 1970 SC 1002 , Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab : 1996 (2) SCC 715 , Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana : 1997 (6) SCC 538 , Union of India v. Virpal Singh : 1995 (6) SCC 684 , Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.: 1997 SCC (5) 201 , Akhil Bhartiya Socit Karmchari Sangh v. Union of India : 1996 (6) SCC 65 , Indra Sawhney v. Union of India : 1992 Supp 3 SCC 217 , General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari : AIR 1962 SC 36 , Mohd. Hasan v. State of U.P.: 1997 (1) JT SC 384 , Superintending Engineer Public Health, UT Chandigarh and ors. v. Kuldip Singh and ors. : 1997 (2) JT SC 598. 24. In the matter of Ajit Singh Januja (supra), the challenge before the apex court was as to whether the members of SC/ST/BC candidates were entitled to the benefit of reservation in promotional posts on the applicability of roster system and by virtue of having been promoted earlier qua the general category candidate, although senior to them in the earlier lower grade. and promoted later in their own turn, whether by virtue of accelerated promotion through reservation or roster system, whether such promotees were entitled to regain their seniority over and above general category candidates who were due for promotion to next promotional post in general category with reference to the relevant rules on the subject and the constitutional provisions of Article 16(4) and (1) and Article 14 and 335 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court while placing absolutely fair and logical interpretation to the said constitutional provisions, observed as under "If members of SC/BC getting accelerated promotion to reserved posts on account of reservation and operation of the roster are considered against posts meant for general category candidates in the still higher grade of service on the assumption that they have become senior on the basis of accelerated promotions then that exercise shall amount to circumventing the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sabharwal case, because for all practical purposes the promotions of such candidates are being continued like a running account although the percentage of reservation provided for them has been reached and achieved. Once such reserved percentage has been achieved and even the operation of the roster has stopped, then it will not be permissible to consider such candidates for being promoted against the general category posts on the basis of their accelerated promotion, which has been achieved by preservation and roster. (R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L & S) 548: (1995) 29 ATC 481 , relied on (Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L & S) : (1995) 31 ATC 813, JT (1995) 7 SC 231 , followed). Once the quota is full and roster has stopped for members of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes in respect of whom reservation has been made and roster has been prescribed then their case for promotion to a still higher grade against general category posts has to be considered not treating them as members of the Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes "on any crutch''. The accelerated promotions are to be made only against the posts reserved or roster prescribed. The accelerated promotions are to be made only against the posts reserved or roster prescribed. There is no question of that benefit being available when a member of Scheduled Castes of Backward Classes claims promotion against general category posts in the higher grade. This is so because such candidates who are members of the Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes and have got promotion on the basis of reservation and application of roster before their seniors in the lower grade belonging to general category, in this process have not superseded them, because there was no inter se comparison of merit between them. As such when such seniors who belong to general category, are promoted later it cannot be said that they have been superseded by such members of Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes who have been promoted earlier. While considering them for further promotion against general category posts if the only fact that they have been promoted earlier being members of Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes is taken into consideration then it shall violate the equality clause and be against the view expressed not only in the case of R.K. Sabharwal by the Constitution Bench, R.K. Sabharwal by the Constitution Bench, but also by the nine- Judge Bench in the case of Indira Sawhney where it has been held that in any cadre reservation should not exceed beyond 50%. The 50% posts already being reserved against which promotions have been made then any promotion against general category posts taking into consideration that they are members of the Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes. shall amount to exceeding the limit fixed in the case of Indra Sawhney. (R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L & S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481 : Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L & S) Supp. 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385 , followed). ( Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217: 1992 SCC (L & S) Supp. 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L & S) Supp. 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385 , followed). ( Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217: 1992 SCC (L & S) Supp. 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385 , relied on) ( Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L & S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813: JT (1995) 7 SC 231 , concurred with) When a Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate is promoted earlier by applying the rule of reservation/roster against a post reserved for such Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate, there is no occasion to examine the merit of such Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate vis-a-vis his seniors belonging to the general category. As such it will be only rational, just and proper to hold that when the general category candidate is promoted later from the lower grade to the higher grade, he will be considered senior to a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste/ Tribe who had been given accelerated promotion against the post reserved for him. Whenever a question arises for filling up a post reserved for Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate in a still higher grade then such candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste/Tribe shall be promoted first but when the consideration is in respect of promotion against the general category post in a still higher grade then the general category candidate who has been promoted later shall be considered senior and his case shall be considered first for promotion applying either principle of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. If this rule and procedure is not applied then result will be that majority of the posts in the higher grade shall be held at one stage by persons who have not only entered service on the basis of reservation and roster but have excluded the general category candidates from being promoted to the posts reserved for general category candidates merely on the ground of their initial accelerated promotions. This will not be consistent with the requirement or the spirit of Article 16(4) or Article 335 of the Constitution." 25. While concurring with the earlier view of the apex court in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan , it was held as under "16. This will not be consistent with the requirement or the spirit of Article 16(4) or Article 335 of the Constitution." 25. While concurring with the earlier view of the apex court in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan , it was held as under "16. The Railway Board's letter dated October 20, 1960 referred to in the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in G.C. Jain says, "seniority of SC/ST employees will be determined under the normal rules. The reservation roster is considered only a machinery to ensure the prescribed percentage of reservation for SC/ST employees and should not be related to the question of seniority and confirmation. If any of the SC/ST employee is confirmed in the post by virtue of roster, such confirmation will not give them any benefit in respect of seniority." Again, the very same idea stated clearly." 26. Since the learned counsel representing private respondents in the aforesaid writ petitions have raised similar and identical contentions advanced at the bar by the learned Additional Advocate General representing the State-respondents, we do not deem it appropriate to deal with their contentions in order to avoid repetition and for the sake of brevity. 27. As a result of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the legal position with reference to the relevant rules on the subject as referred to above and also the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the apex Court, we are of the view that (a) The respondents have failed to adhere to the guidelines laid down by the apex court and directions given gross time to time for maintaining balance in Public Services between the general category candidates and reserved category candidates belonging to SC/ST with a view to achieve harmony between the two so that there should be no discontentment, heart burning and frustration which can never be held to be in the larger interest of the society and State Services as has happened in the aforesaid writ petitions before us. The equality principle which requires the exclusion of the factor and extra weightage of earlier promotion to reserved category candidates because of reservation alone when such candidates compete for further promotion qua general category candidate who rank senior to him in the panel, in our humble view should not confer any undue weightage or benefit in the matter of promotion to the higher posts simply because the said candidates belong to SC/ST/BC categories. (b) Benefit of reservation at the time of initial entry in service for the members of reserved category is understandable and appreciable provided the norms of reservation as regards the prescribed percentage are strictly adhered to by the appointing authority and by any stretch of imagination it should not be construed as conferment of undue benefits in the matter of promotions to the higher posts for which merit alone should be the criteria. apart from the seniority form the combined list of general category candidates as well as the reserved category candidates which should not he disturbed in all respects since otherwise it will tantamount to hostile discrimination being violative of guarantee of equality of opportunity in the matter of appointment to public offices which also includes the right to he considered for promotion for higher posts in violation of Articles 14. 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India read with the relevant Rules of 1954 as referred to above. 28. Relying upon the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench in the matter of R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab & others : 1995 (2) SCC 745 wherein the apex court observed that "When the total number of posts in a cadre are filled by the operation of the roster then the result envisaged by the impugned instructions in achieved. There is no justification to operate the roster thereafter. The "running account" is to operate only till the quota provided under the impugned instructions is reached and not thereafter. The vacancies arising in the cadre, after the initial posts are filled, will pose no difficulty. As and when there is a vacancy whether permanent or temporary in a particular post the same has to be filled from amongst the category to which the post belonged in the roster. The vacancies arising in the cadre, after the initial posts are filled, will pose no difficulty. As and when there is a vacancy whether permanent or temporary in a particular post the same has to be filled from amongst the category to which the post belonged in the roster. However, in the event of non-availability of a reserve candidate at the roster point it would be open to the State Government to carry forward the point in a just and fair manner. The decision on this point shall operate prospectively". The seniority position of the respective candidates indicating the date of appointment in junior scale, date of the promotion in senior scale as well as the seniority position in the senior scales as on 1.7.1987 and the date of promotions in the selection grade would be relevant to mention in this context and which are apparent from the following chart as appended to the writ petitions : S.No. Name Date of appointment of junior scale Date of promotion in Snr. Scale Seniority position in Snr Date of Promotion in 1. B.K. Sharma 17/20.3.73 (at Sr 1 in order) 30.6.82 13(Seniority) 2. S.C. Vyas 17.3.73(at Sr 3 in order) 30.6.82 14 2.5.89 3. Madan Lal Dahiya (SC) 17/23.3.73(at No. 11 in order) 10.8.81 9" 22.4.88 4. Chunni Lal (SC) 24.11.73 2.9.81 32" 7.3.86 5. J.C. Kanwat(ST) 5.4.74 4.8.81 33" 7.3.86 6. Prahlad Rai (SC) 21.12.74 30.6.82 34" 7.3.86 7. Jaganlal Meena(ST) 20.3.76 30.6.82 35" 7.3.86 8. Bhagwati Prasad Verma (SC) 23.11.77 - 39" 27.4.89 9. Hariram Meena(ST) 17.10.79 8.1.86 48" 27.4.89 10. Ms. Badan Bairwa (SC) 17.10.79 13.1.86 49" 27.4.89 29. It will be seen from the perusal of the above chart that while candidates placed at serial Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10, namely, Jagan Lai Meena (ST), Bhagwati Prasad Verma (SC), Hari Ram Meena (ST) and Ms. Badam Bairwa (SC) have already been promoted to I.PS. Ms. Badan Bairwa (SC) 17.10.79 13.1.86 49" 27.4.89 29. It will be seen from the perusal of the above chart that while candidates placed at serial Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10, namely, Jagan Lai Meena (ST), Bhagwati Prasad Verma (SC), Hari Ram Meena (ST) and Ms. Badam Bairwa (SC) have already been promoted to I.PS. by virtue of having received accelerated promotions over and above the general category candidates who were appointed in R.P.S. earlier in point of time, i.e., B.K. Sharma & Suresh Chandra Vyas in C.W.P. No. 2812/96, Harish Chandra Bhagat, Ram Dayal Goyal and Ummed Singh petitioners in C.W.P. No. 3086/96, Bhayaram Gwala in C.W.P. No. 6208/96 and Rajesh Kumar Sood and Shiv Prasad Sharma petitioners in C.W.P. No. 4918/97 all in R.P.S. cadre, D.K. Vijay petitioner in C.W.P. No. 2545/96, S.S. Rajvi petitioner in C.W.P. No. 2675/96, K.K. Gupta, Manmat Kumar, Ms. Pramila Surana, Girdhari Lai Gupta and Moti Lal Gupta petitioners in C.W.P. No. 2963/96, J.K. 'Bansal, K.G. Agrawal, Hemant Goswami and PP Vidyasar petitioners in C.W.P. No. 4726/97 all in R.A.S. cadre were appointed earlier in point of time than the private respondents arrayed in the said writ petitions and yet the said private respondents have received the benefit of out of turn promotions in gross violation of the criteria and guidelines as envisaged under the Rules for reservation of SC/ST category candidates resulting in unlawful deprivation of promotional benefits to the I.P.S. and I.A.S. cadres of Central Services respectively to the general category candidates. 30. During the course of hearing Shri Rajendra Soni,. learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Harish Chandra Bhagat, petitioner in person, as well as the other learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have vehemently contended at the bar that the ratio of the decision of the apex court in the matter of Ajit Singh Januja (supra) as well as the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra), Union of India and ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra), Union of India and ors. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan etc.-Civil Appeal No. 9272/95 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6468/87 along with other connected civil appeals decided by the apex court on 10.10.1995 reported in JT 1995 (7) SC 231 as well as the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the matter of Har Charan Singh and Anr etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors.. Civil Appeal Nos 4763-65/89 decided on 1.3.96 have been grossly violated and not adhered to by the respondents ill giving the benefit of out of turn promotions to the respondents in giving the benefit of out of turn promotions to the respondents both to the Selection and Super time Grades in R.P.S. and R.A.S. cadres and thereafter to I.P.S. and I.A.S. cadres from R.P.S. and R.A.S. cadres, respectively. 31. The private respondents while controverting the contentions of the petitioners have opposed the maintainability of the aforesaid writ petitions by contending that promotions given to SC/ST,/BC candidates were in accordance with the Rules and no grievance can be raised by the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners after lapse of so many years cannot raise any grievance/dispute with regard to the promotional benefits conferred on ~eserved category candidates, since all the promotions which have so far been made are in accordance with the Rules. While not disputing the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it has been contended that the judgment of the apex court in the matter of Ajit Singh Januja was delivered on 1.3.1996, while the seniority of R.PS. cadre officers was determined in accordance with the provisions of R.PS. Rules. 1965. which was issued on 19.1.1996/22.2.1996 and hence the above noted judgment is not applicable to the instant writ petitions. While distinguishing the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, it has been contended that the same is based on certain circular issued by the Punjab Government providing for roster system whereas seniority which has been assigned to R.P.S. officers in these cases is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 33 of the Rules of 1954, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand Soni has interpreted the provisions of Rule 33 of the Rules of 1954 which is binding on the State of Rajasthan and all concerned. 32. 32. It may further be noted that the impugned order dated 19.1.1996 (Annexure 10) has been issued following the judgment of the Apex Court in F.C. Soni's case. 33. On merits the respondents have reiterated their stand that the principle laid down in Ajit Singh's case (supra) is not applicable to the instant writ petitions primarily for the reason that the judgment in the said case was rendered by the apex court subsequent to the issuance of seniority lists dated 30.6.1990 and 19.1.1996. Secondly the present controversy is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of F.C. Soni. 34. As regard Rule 28(A) of the Rules of 1954, it has been contended by the respondents that the grant of senior grade is a promotion like any other promotion under the said Rules and thereafter seniority has been assigned to the respective candidates in accordance with Rule 33 of the Rules of 1954. The seniority of the officers was drawn up vide Notification dated 30.6.1990 and. therefore, question of rectification of the seniority list issued by the State Government does not arise. With regard to Rules 8. 9, 28 (A) and 33 of the Rules of 1954 and circulars with regard to reservation issued by the respondents, it has been contended that the same are not violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the State Government is fully competent to make rules for providing reservation to SC/ST category candidates. 35. By way of alternative argument it has been contended by the respondents that the petitioners have got alternative efficacious remedy of filing appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of claiming seniority, which they have failed to avail and hence the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this count alone. 36. In the matter of Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan etc. 36. In the matter of Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan etc. civil appeal No. 9272/95 alongwith other connected civil appeal which were decided by the apex court vide its judgment, dated 10.10.95 reported in JT 1995 (7) SC 231 the appellant Union of India and others had sought to challenge the decision of Administrative Tribunal which had upheld the validity of the impugned circulars issued by the Railway Board conferred upon it by Rule 123 of the statutory rules framed by the President of India dealing with the subject of reservation for Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes in promotion to group D and C (class IV and III) on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability, the apex court while examining the effect of the reservation as regards to the general category candidates vis-a-vis reserved category candidates remitted back the matter to the Tribunal for disposal afresh with certain directions. It was observed by the apex court that the seniority position of the candidates prepared in the panel of the selecting authority at the time of initial selection must be reflected in each of the higher grades which. means that while Rule of reservation gave accelerated i promotions,- it does not give accelerated or what my be called the consequential seniority. As regards the reservation for SC/ST candidates it was held by the apex court that the same is not warranted by Art. 16(4) of the Constitution of India which mandates as under : "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." 37. The apex court further observed that the impugned circulars of the Railway Board providing reservation in the matter of promotion to SC/ST candidates is not warranted by Art. 16(4) of the Constitution since it is violative of legislative mandate since mere seniority in the gradation list does not confer any right to a person to be promoted to the selection grade posts to which promotion is made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit except where(i) merits of the officers concerned are equal and no other criteria is available or (ii) where its claimant has a statutory right. It was further observed that the word 'Panel' denotes merit list or select list prepared in the case of selection post only while in case of non-selection post there is no question of such panel. 38. We are further of the view that as a result of erroneous interpretation on the RPS Rules 1954 more particularly Rules, 8, 9, 28A and 33, benefit of accelerated and out of turn promotion has been conferred by the State of private respondents to the great detriment of the petitioners as regards their service career contrary to the guidelines of the apex court in the aforesaid decisions and also in violation of prescribed quota of 28% as fixed under the Policy of State Govt. since promotions of private respondents on higher posts have been made far and in excess of the said quota which deserves to be deprecated by this Court. 39. We are further of the view that it was not open to the respondent-State to have made excessive reservations for SC/ST category 3 candidates beyond 28% of the total sanctioned posts in the selection scale of R.P.S. and R.A.S., respectively which has resulted not only in total imbalance in services as regards the general category candidates qua SC/ST category ii candidates in utter disregard and violation of reservation policy being violative of Arts. 14, 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution of India, since the promotional benefits which were legitimately due in accordance with the Rules to the general category candidates were not given to them as and when they were due and which were conferred on the reserved quota candidates who had thus obviously stolen a march ahead of the petitioners in their service career resulting in unjust, unlawful and arbitrary discrimination which is neither permissible nor warranted under the Rules. 40. From the additional affidavits filed by Shri V.K. Sharma who is one of the petitioners in D.B.C.P.W.No. 2812/96 it is borne out that consequent upon the review D.P.C. of the selection scale of R.P.S. officers from 1985-86 to 1989-90 which was convened on 20.8.1996 (result of which has not yet been declared by the respondent) but holding of the said D.PC. has been admitted by the Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan. has been admitted by the Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan. respondent No. 2, as per which the total number of SC/ST officers in the selection scales of R.P.S. out of total sanctioned strength of 22 comes to 15 as on 1.4.1990 was as follows S.No. NAME OF OFFICER ORDER NO.& DATE REMARKS 1. Nathi Lai (SC) F2(A)(i) Home(Gr.I) 77 dated 16.12.1981. Retired on 30.12.92 2. Data Ram (SC) -do- Retired on 30.6.1991 3. Mahavir Prasad (SC) F-5(1) Home Gr.l/84 dated 7.3.1986 Promoted to IPS by order dated 24.3.1991. 4. Laxrni Narain Meena (ST) -do- Promoted to IPS by order dated 22.1.1991 5. Chunni Lai (SC) -do- 6. Jagadish Chandra Kanwat(ST) -do- 7. Prahalad Raj Jevaria (SC) -do- 8. Jagan Lai Meena (ST) -do- 9. Madan Lai Dahia (SC)] F-5(1) Home Gr.I/84 dated 22.4.1988. 10. Bhagwati Pd. Verma (SC) F-5(2) Home Gr.I/88 dated 27.4.1989 11. Hari Ram Meena (ST) -do- 12. Kr. Badam Berwa (SC) -do- 13. Chandanmal Nawal (SC) D.P.C. Held on 20.8.96 14. Gordhan Lai Meena (ST) -do- 15. Thawar Chand Damore(ST) -do- 41. It has further been averred in the aforesaid affidavit that as per the rules of selection board, these were required to be made on year to year basis for promotion of RPS to IPS. The vacancies of IPS and the consequential zone of consideration is as follows S.No. Year of vacancy Number of vacancy Zone of consideration No. of officers remained after selection Remarks 1. 1990-91 7 3(7 + 2) = 27 27-7 = 20 First 27 officers will be considered 2. 1991-92 3 3(3 +2) = 15 15-3 = 12 +5=17 No extra officer beyond 27 will be considered 3. 1992-93 4 3(4+2) = 18 18-4 =14 One 28th will be considered beyond 1st 27 officers 4. 1993-94 3 3(3 + 2) = 15 15-3 =12 one 29th will be considered beyond first 28 officers 5. 1994-95 2 3(2+2)=12 12-2 =10 No extra officer will be considered beyond 29 officers Total vacancies = 19 + 2 = 21 Zone of consideration = 29 42. Thus the total zone of consideration will in no case will go beyond first 29 (twenty nine) officers.The State Government has sent a seniority list of eligible IMPS officers for promotion to IPS to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus the total zone of consideration will in no case will go beyond first 29 (twenty nine) officers.The State Government has sent a seniority list of eligible IMPS officers for promotion to IPS to the Ministry of Home Affairs. New Delhi and the Secretary, U.PS.C. The 30 RPS officers are as follows S.No. Name of Officer Scale of RPS 1. Randhir Singh Selection grade 2. Chunni Lal (SC) -do- 3. Prabhu Dayal Sharma -do- 4. Kundanlal Sharma -do- 5. Jagdish Chandra Kanwat (ST) -do- 6. Prahlad Rai Jewaria (SC) -do- 7. Jaganlal Meena (ST) -do- 8. Chandanmal Nawal (SC) -do 9. Bhagwati Prasad Verma (SC) -do- 10. Jitendra Kumar Soni -do- 11. Madan Lai Dahia (SC) -do- 12. Radhe Shyam Sharma -do- 13. Ram Dayal Goel -do- 14. Ummed Singh Krishnia -do- 15. Harish Chandra Bhagat -do- 16. Madan Mohan Atrey -do- 17. Liyakat Ali -do- 18. Hari Ram Meena (ST) -do- 19. Kr. Badam Bairwa (SC) -do- 20. Gordhan Lai Meena (ST) -do- 21. Thawar Chand Damore (ST) -do- 22. Fateh Chand Soni -do- 23. Govind Narain Sharma -do- 24. Satya Prakash Kharaqawat '-do- 25. Bal Krishna Sharma -do- 26. Murad Ali Abra -do- 27. Shiv Kumar Sharma -do- 28. Suresh Chandra Vyas -do- 29. Girdhari Lai Tewari -do- 30. Rajesh Kumar Sood -do- 43. From the perusal of the above chart, it is apparent that the respondent have purposely pleaded the case of private respondents contrary to rules with a view to derive undue benefits under the garb of reservation policy and which are not admissible to them in accordance with rules. 44. We have also perused the reply filed by private respondent No. 10. Madan Lai Dahia to the addl. affidavit of the petitioner in D.B.C.W.P.No. 2812/96 and also the contentions advanced on behalf of other private respondents No. 6 to 12 in the said writ petition as well as in other connected writ petitions. 45. Prima facie, we are of the view that the respondents have committed gross violation of the R.PS. Rules of 1954 more particularly Rules. 8, 9, 28(A) and 33 of the said Rules. 45. Prima facie, we are of the view that the respondents have committed gross violation of the R.PS. Rules of 1954 more particularly Rules. 8, 9, 28(A) and 33 of the said Rules. Their legal authenticity and validity is not open to challenge and they are valid and enforceable in accordance with law and intra-vires of the Constitution of India having been drawn up after express authorisation obtained from the President of India in accordance with Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. We are further of the view that in the matter of promotions to the higher posts it is not only seniority of the respective candidate which should be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment but also the relative merits of the candidates in strict order of seniority should not be ignored since otherwise it would obviously result in heart burning amongst those candidates who have been unjustly and unlawfully deprived in their promotional benefits when they had legitimately fallen due as a result of out of turn promotions having been given to candidates to reserve quota candidates as it has happened in the instant writ petitions. 46. As regards the R.A.S. officers who have filed aforesaid writ petitions against the State as well as the private respondents, the contentions which they have advanced are almost identical to those advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in matter of R.P.S. Officers. The petitioners have sought to challenge Rule 33 and also Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 which were published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 9.7.1954 and came into force w.e.f. the said date as being ultra-vires of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Rules 8 and 33 of the said Rules are paramateria the same as the R.PS. Rules of 1954. hence they need not be reproduced or repeated herein. The R.A.S. Officers in C.W.P Nos. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Rules 8 and 33 of the said Rules are paramateria the same as the R.PS. Rules of 1954. hence they need not be reproduced or repeated herein. The R.A.S. Officers in C.W.P Nos. 2545/96, 2963/96, 4726/97 and 2675/96 have sought to challenge the impugned seniority list issued by the respondents dated 22.12.1986 (Annexure 2) and seniority list dated 22.4.1995 (Annexure 3) by virtue of which the private respondents belonging to SC/ST/BC categories which were much junior to the petitioners in terms of their original substantive appointment in R.A.S. were given the benefit of selection grade and were assigned seniority over and above that petitioners who are general category candidates and as a result of which They have been unlawfully benefited by accelerated promotions in terms of reservation policy and roster system in violation of Rules 8, 9, 28A and 33 of the Rules of 1954. 47. As a result of above discussions, we are of the view that the petitioners deserve to succeed and accordingly the aforesaid writ petitions are allowed with the following directions (a) The impugned orders dated 19.1.1996/2.2.1996 passed by the respondents in DBCWP No. 2812/96 by which the benefit of accelerated promotions has been extended to the private respondents belonging to the SC/ST/BC. are quashed and set-aside; (b) Seniority list dated 1.7.1987 circulated vide Annexure-3 dated 30.6.1990 in DBCWP No. 3086/1996 as well as the seniority list dated 30.6.1990 and the orders dated 19.1.1996/2.2.1996 passed by the respondents in DBCWP No. 6208/1996, seniority list dated 23.4.1997 and the order dated 5.4.1997 in DBCWP No. 4918/1997 in R.P.S. matters are quashed and set-aside. (c) Combined seniority list published by the respondents in DBCWP Nos. 2545/1996, 2675/1996, 4726/1997 (646/97) and 2963/1996 dated 22.4.1995 (in R.A.S. matters) pertaining to grant of selection grade in Rajasthan Administrative Services of SC/ST/BC candidates are quashed and set-aside. (c) Combined seniority list published by the respondents in DBCWP Nos. 2545/1996, 2675/1996, 4726/1997 (646/97) and 2963/1996 dated 22.4.1995 (in R.A.S. matters) pertaining to grant of selection grade in Rajasthan Administrative Services of SC/ST/BC candidates are quashed and set-aside. (d) Rules 8, 9, 28A and 33 of the Rules of 1954 are held intra-vires of the Constitution of India and are not open to challenge; (e) Benefit of reservation to the SC/ST/BC candidates in the matter of promotions to higher posts from State Service i.e. R.P.S. and R.A.S. to I.P.S. and I.A.S., respectively should not exceed the prescribed percentage quota i.e. 28% since otherwise it would adversely affect the service career of the general category candidates and the benefit of this prescribed percentage in the matter of reservation should only be conferred at the time of initial entry in service and should not extend in the matter of promotions: (f) All promotions made from SC/ST/BC category candidates to R.PS. and R.A.S. and from said cadres to I.PS. and I.A.S., respectively in excess of the prescribed percentage quota i.e. 28% as fixed by the State Government for reserved category candidates by which the benefit of accelerated promotions have been conferred on the private respondents are quashed and set-aside: (g) The petitioners whose seniority has been adversely affected consequent upon the passing of the impugned orders which are subject matter of challenge in the aforesaid writ petitions shall be entitled to regain their original seniority and the respondents are directed to restore the said seniority to the petitioners with effect from due date, i.e., the date when their immediate juniors (private respondents) were promoted with all consequential benefits; and (h) Review D.P.C. shall be convened by the respondents within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order which shall draw a fresh seniority list out of the combined category of general as well as SC/ST/BC candidates and promotions to next higher post to R.PS. and R.A.S. and to I.P.S. and I.A.S. cadres, respectively shall be made having due regard to the original panel position in strict order of seniority of the petitioners as well as the private respondents in accordance with the rules. The revised seniority list shall be published by the respondents positively within a period of 60 days thereafter. 48. There will be no order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******