JUDGMENT 1. 1. The present special appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition No. 5263/99 whereby the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (here in after referred to as the Tribunal) dated 8.6.1999 had been dismissed. 2. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant against the impugned order dated 28.10.99 is that in the circumstances of the case the law laid down by the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain 1996(3) SCC 363 was not applicable. The Tribunal on the application made by the non-petitioner Rajesh Kumar Sood against the order dated 23.4.1997 had allowed the appeal by restoring the selection of the non-petitioner Mr. Sood for the year 1988-89 in the merit quota which was so awarded to him vide order dated 27.4.1989. The order dated 23.4.1997 changing the year of allotment was set aside by the Tribunal. 3. The facts as stated are that the non-petitioner was appointed in Rajasthan Police Service on 8.11.1973 and was promoted in Senior Scale of RPS in March, 1982. He was promoted to selection grade of RPS vide order dated 27.4.1989 on merit basis. One Randhir Singh, another RPS officer, filed to a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court and in pursuance of the judgment in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3273/87 decided on 4.9.1990 in the case of Randhir Singh, a review DPC was held. The non-petitioner in the case filed by Randhir Singh was not a party to it. However, the review DPC assigned the year of selection grade to 1993 in seniority cum merit quota and thus modified the earlier order of selection grade in the year 1988-89 on merit quota. The non-petitioner assailed such action before the Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal by relying the judgment of this court in Prahlad Rai Jowaria v. State of Rajasthan and Jagdish Chandra Kanwal v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5390/90 and 5389/90 decided on 14.5.1992 held that the review DPC could not change or effect the status of the writ petitioner for the reason that he was never a party in Randhir Singh's case. The Division Bench of this court in Special Appeal (Writ) No. 319/98 decided on 13.11.1998 had also held that the Department of Personnel in the garb of review DPC cannot be allowed to disturb and up set the promotion after seven years. 4. Relying on U.P Jal Nigam's case the Tribunal had held that the appellant having out-standing/very good report for six years and down grading the report for 1987-88 by reviewing officer to good from outstanding could not be upheld. 5. In our opinion, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be erroneous on any count. Admittedly, the non-petitioner had outstanding reports of the previous years. He was selected in merit quota and was allotted the year of 1988-89. By down grading him from outstanding to good for one year without giving any reason does attract the dictim as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam's case. Even otherwise, from the facts it is clear that once he had been so promoted by duly constituted DPC, his case could not have been reviewed while deciding the case of Randhir Singh where the non-petitioner was not a party and no adverse order could have been passed against him. 6. Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to set aside the impugned order of re-allocating the year and at the most the Tribunal should have directed the State to constitute a DPC once again to consider the case of the non-petitioner. This contention of the counsel for the appellant on the fact of it is not sustainable for the reason that the Tribunal had complete jurisdiction to set aside the order whereby the year of selection in the case of the non-petitioner had been changed by the State Government illegally and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal has not determined the right of the non-petitioner but had only restored the right which had been awarded by the appellant itself in the order dated 27.4.1989. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******