JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed vide Annexures-4 and 5 dated 22.7.1993 and 23.2.1996 whereby, the petitioner instead of having been awarded the promotion to RAS Selection Scale against the vacancy of 1988-89 (merit) vis-a-vis persons junior to him, namely Shri D.K. Vijay and Shri A.K. Bhandari has been granted the said selection scale for the year 1988-89 (sic?). The petitioner mainly relies on the judgment passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, copy of which has been attached as Annexure-2 dated 9.12.1991 by which order the Tribunal had given a finding that the petitioner was entitled to promotion and assigned the year 1989-90 by considering 7 years report from the year 1982-83 to the year 1988-89. This order of the Tribunal was implemented so far the fixation of pay of the petitioner in the selection scale was concerned when he was fixed in the scale of Rs. 3,700-5,000 w.e.f. 20.10.1989. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed in RAS Ordinary Scale in the year 1977, was promoted in the Senior Scale in 1982. He was granted RAS Selection Scale against the vacancy 1990-91 subject to the review and revision as per order Annexure-1 dated 1.1.1991. In the order Annexure-1, the petitioners' name stands at Sr.No. 4 and the name of Shri A.K. Bhandari respondent No. 4 is not mentioned in the order as he was allocated the year 1991-92 subsequently as per order dated 22.7.1993 where his name stands at Sr.No.3. It is not denied that the petitioner was senior to Shri A.K. Bhandari respondent No. 4. 3. According to the petitioner he was entitled for grant of RAS selection scale against the vacancy 1989-90 and, therefore, he had approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal which appeal was allowed on 9.12.1991 as per Annexure-2 with the direction that the petitioner was entitled to the selection scale w.e.f. 22.10.1989. The Tribunal had observed on the facts mentioned therein that the case of the petitioner requires to be reviewed for considering him to be put at selection grade for the year 1989-90. However, it is stated that while implementing various judgments passed in various cases, the petitioner has now been allotted the quota of 1990-91 on merit basis whereas the respondent No. 4 Shri A.K. Bhandari and other person Shri Anant Sarin have been promoted on merit basis against the vacancy of 1988-89. However, it is stated that while implementing various judgments passed in various cases, the petitioner has now been allotted the quota of 1990-91 on merit basis whereas the respondent No. 4 Shri A.K. Bhandari and other person Shri Anant Sarin have been promoted on merit basis against the vacancy of 1988-89. It is also one of the contentions that even though the order of the Tribunal was implemented in part by granting him the scale w.e.f. 22.10.1989 vide annexure-3, but he should have been also allowed the year of 1989-90. 4. A review DPC was constituted for reviewing the cases falling under the year 1987-88 to 1991-92 and vide Annexure-4 dated 22.7.1993 the petitioner had been allocated the year 1990-91. Yet another review DPC had been constituted in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Singh Meena's case to review all the cases on the basis of seven years record for the purpose of determining merit to be 'outstanding' and 'very good' and the order dated 23.2.1996 had been passed vide Annexure-5 where the petitioner's name has been mentioned at Sr.No.2 for the years of 1990-91 and Shri Bhandari has been shown to be against the year 1988-1989. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though the petitioner was also possessing the requisite qualifications and the record, but still his juniors have been allowed to have a march over the petitioner in the matter of grant of selection scale namely Shri A.K. Bhandari and Shri Anant Sareen and Shri Doongardan by allowing them the year of 1988-89 even though their names appear at lower place than the petitioner and the petitioner is aggrieved against such supersession. 6. The petitioner submits that same logic as was applied for promoting Shri D.K. Vijay and Shri Sareen for giving them selection scale in the merit quota for 1988-89 be also applied to the petitioner. Shri D.K. Vijay who is junior to the petitioner was successful in his contention before the Service Tribunal and the petitioner submits that he also possessed 7 years outstanding service record prior to 1988-89 and in such situation in view of the authoritative judgment in U.P. Jal Nigam's case, the petitioner cannot be discriminated against. 7. The material facts as stated are not disputed. The written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 7. The material facts as stated are not disputed. The written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that in view of the judgment passed in (1) Mahaveer's case in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7586/92, the selection grade promotions were to be reviewed and thus despite the fact that the petitioner had been ordered to be considered for the year 1988-89 by the Service Tribunal vide Annexure-2, the petitioner was shifted to the year 1991. It is not denied that the junior persons to the petitioner have been allowed to be retained in the year 1988-89. It is admitted that Shri A.K. Bhandari was junior to the petitioner in the junior scale, senior scale and also in selection scale, but has now become senior to the petitioner in view of the order dated 23.2.1996 in the selection scale only vide Annexure-5. It is admitted in para 6 of the written statement that in the APARs of 1981-82 the reporting officer had treated the petitioner to be 'very good', but the reviewing officer had rated him to be 'average' and, therefore, he was rated as 'average'. It is further submitted that the reporting officer had declared the petitioner as to be 'very intelligent officer' in the second APAR of 1981-82 but some how there was no report written by the Reviewing Officer. 8. Private respondents had also filed the written statement. It is admitted by the private respondent Shri D.K. Vijay that he had been recommended by the DPC for selection scale in the year 1989-90 on the basis of 'merit quota' vide order dated 20.10.1989 and the name of the petitioner even though recommended on merit quota could not reach as quota stood exhausted for the vacancies of 1989-90. It is admitted that the Tribunal vide Annexure-2 had issued direction in favour of the petitioner to be promoted to the selection scale on review and revision basis and even through the selection scale had been granted to him from 20.10.1989 and arrears also paid but the promotion year had not been allocated to him. It is admitted that in the seniority list the name of the petitioner stands at Sr.No. 54 whereas other junior persons names appear at Sr.No.67, 70 and 76. One of the junior pesons Shri Anant Sareen had since expired and Doongardan had retired from service. 9. It is admitted that in the seniority list the name of the petitioner stands at Sr.No. 54 whereas other junior persons names appear at Sr.No.67, 70 and 76. One of the junior pesons Shri Anant Sareen had since expired and Doongardan had retired from service. 9. From the above narrated facts the following aspects are borne out. (1) That vide Annexure-2 the Service Tribunal on the appeal filed by the petitioner had declared that his seven years record was 'outstanding' or 'very good' and a direction was issued to the respondent to hold review/revision DPC for considering the case of the petitioner for selection grade for the year 1989-90. (2) The petitioner was actually granted the selection grade from 20.10.1989 and plus pay was refixed vide annexure-3. (3) The direction of the Tribunal for holding he review DPC for allotting the year 1989-90 was not implemented as yet. (4) That Shri A.K. Bhandari, was junior to the petitioner but has been granted the selection grade on merit quota and so is the case in regard to his another junior respondent No. 3 D.K. Vijay. (5) Ror part of the year 1981-82 the reporting officer had given ACR of the petitioner to be 'very good' but the reviewing officer had down graded him to be 'average' and for the remaining part, the petitioner was graded to be very intelligent officer by the Reporting Officer. (6) No opportunity was given to the petitioner before down grading his ACR remarks from very good to average. (7) Nothing has been brought on record nor averred that the petitioner's APARs are not 'outstanding' or 'very good' for seven years starting from 1988-89 backward as held in annexure-2 by the Service Tribunal (1982-83 to 1988-89). 10. Above are the certain points which are borne out of the record. The petitioner does rely on a judgment of this court reported in (2) WLR 1996 Rajasthan 197 wherein it was held that the remarks for a part of the year are beneficial to the officer, only those remarks will be taken into consideration; that was a case where the officer was covered by two reports of the same year. He had been rated to be above average and also 'very good' or 'outstanding', this court had held that the report which is beneficial for the petitioner shall be considered for the purpose of promotion. He had been rated to be above average and also 'very good' or 'outstanding', this court had held that the report which is beneficial for the petitioner shall be considered for the purpose of promotion. Yet in another case of State of Rajasthan Vs. R.B. Parmar this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3773/98 decided on 27.1.1999 [reported in 1999(1) RLR 125 ) and relying on Supreme Court judgment in (4) U.P. Jal Nigam's case ( 1996(2) SCC 363 ) had observed as under: 'In U.P. Jal Nigam's case (supra) it was held:- 'As we view it the extreme illustration given by the High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down, like falling from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are a positive grading. All that is required by the authority recording confidentials in the situation is to record reasons for such down grading on the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him of the change in the form of an advises.' 'Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam's case incorporated the view of the High Court. 'The High Court to justify its view has given an illustration that if an employee legitimately had earned an 'outstanding' report in a particular year which, in a succeeding one and without his knowledge is reduced to the level of 'satisfactory' without any communication to him, it would certainly be adverse and affect him at one or the other stage of his career." Their Lordships accepted the view of the High Court and observed- "It may be emphasised that even a positive confidential entry in a given case can previously be adverse and to say that an adverse entry should always be qualitively damaging may not be true. In the instant case we have seen the service record of the first respondent. No reason for the change is mentioned. The downgrading is reflected by comparison. This cannot sustain. Having explained in this manner the case of the first respondent and the system that should prevail in the Jai Nigam, we do not find any difficulty in accepting he ultimate result arrived at by the High Court." 11. The down grading of official Mr. The downgrading is reflected by comparison. This cannot sustain. Having explained in this manner the case of the first respondent and the system that should prevail in the Jai Nigam, we do not find any difficulty in accepting he ultimate result arrived at by the High Court." 11. The down grading of official Mr. Parmar from 'outstanding' to 'satisfactory' and from 'outstanding' to 'good' for the year 1991-92 and 1994-95 was not accepted by the Service Tribunal and the view of the Tribunal was upheld by this court in the above-said judgment. In the present case also the Tribunal in Annexure-2 while deciding the appeal of the petitioner had observed that Shri D.K. Vijay and Shri A.K. Bhandari and Doongar Dan etc. were promoted on the basis of merit and the petitioner stood senior to said persons. The Tribunal in the order annexure-2 which order is final otherwise for not having been challenged had observed that even considering the APARs from 1982-83 to 1988-89 the petitioner's record was 'very good' and 'outstanding'. The report for 1988-89 was available only for three months at the time of holding of DPC and in case the record was not made available of the remaining period of 1988-89, it cannot be said that there was any fault of the petitioner in this regard and had given a specific finding in para 12 that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted from the year 1989-90 on the basis of merit basis on record and had further observed that the department had erred in not granting the promotion to the petitioner vis-a-vis his junior persons for the said period. Apart from record, it is admitted in the written statement filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that even for the year 1981-82 the reporting officer had treated the petitioner to be 'very good' and in such situation the contention of the petitioner is justified to say that he has been wrongly ignored. 12. Apart from record, it is admitted in the written statement filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that even for the year 1981-82 the reporting officer had treated the petitioner to be 'very good' and in such situation the contention of the petitioner is justified to say that he has been wrongly ignored. 12. After hearing arguments and going through the pleadings I am of the view that Annexures 4 and 5 allotting the year of the promotion for the selection grade to the petitioner by assigning him the year 1990-91 cannot be upheld, record of the petitioner being up to the mark as required under the rules, the petitioner was entitled to the selection grade from the year 1988-89 when his immediate juniors were granted the selection grade i.e. respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The impugned order so far relates to the petitioner cannot be upheld and the petitioner is to be treated to have been assigned the year of 1988-89 on merit basis which was the direction of the Tribunal in the Annexure-2 for the reason that the junior persons to the petitioner in merit have been so assigned the year specially when the record of the petitioner was either 'outstanding' or 'very good' for past seven years.With the above-said observations the writ petition is allowed. No costs.Petition Allowed. *******