JUDGMENT 1. - By instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 27.5.1995 (Annex. 1), whereby selection scales granted vide orders dated 17.6.1992 & 14.2.1994 on completion of 9 & 18 years of service, have been withdrawn. 2. Facts, in brief, are that petitioner initially joined service as Borer on 7.10.1967 in the Ground Water Department and holding the post in substantive capacity. Pursuant to policy decision of the State Government vide Circular dated 25.1.1992 for grant of selection scales, the employees who were members of Ministerial and Subordinate Services so also Class IV cadre, on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of services in the cadre/service, are considered for grant of selection scales. Since, the petitioner was initially appointed on 7.10.1967, he completed initial 9 year's service in 1976, so also 18 year's service in the year 1985, therefore, was considered and granted selection scales on completion of 9 & 18 years' service in terms of Circular dated 25.1.1992, vide orders dated 17.6.1992 & 14.2.1994, but both the scales were withdrawn by respondents vide order dated 27.5.1995 (Annex. 1) without affording an opportunity of hearing on the pretext that there were adverse remarks recorded in his APARs of 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92; and accordingly, as per order dated 27.5.1995 (Annex. 1), he was to be considered being eligible for grant of selection scales of 9 & 18 years' service after four years thereafter. Hence, this petition. 3. Shri R.K. Sharma, counsel for petitioner urged that once petitioner has been granted selection scales on completion of 9 & 18 years' service from the date of his first appointment in terms of Circular dated 25.1.1992, the same could not have been withdrawn by respondents vide order dated 27.5.1995 (Annex. 1) without due compliance of principles of natural justice, as it violates basic right involving civil consequences and selection scale once granted could not have been withdrawn without issuing show cause notice to him. In this regard, Shri R.K. Sharma placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Pushplata Thada v. State, 2001(2) WLC (Raj.) 560. 4. 1) without due compliance of principles of natural justice, as it violates basic right involving civil consequences and selection scale once granted could not have been withdrawn without issuing show cause notice to him. In this regard, Shri R.K. Sharma placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Pushplata Thada v. State, 2001(2) WLC (Raj.) 560. 4. It has also been urged that apart from compliance of principles of natural justice, the very reason which has been attributed for withdrawal of selection scales granted on completion of 9 & 18 years' service because of adverse remarks recorded in his APArs of 1988 to 1992, is also not germane obviously because conjoint reading of clause 3 read with clause 7 of Circular dated 25.1.1992 depicts that the incumbent becomes eligible for grant of selection scales on completion of 9 & 18 years from the date of initial appointment, and since petitioner completed his 18 years' service in terms of his first appointment (which was of October, 1967) in October, 1985 and as such any subsequent adversity in service recorded could not have been considered to prejudice claim for grant of selection scale particularly when it was not available for examining satisfactory service in terms of Circular dated 25.1.1992. In support of this submission, Shri R.K. Sharma placed reliance upon decisions of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, 1998(3) WLC (Raj.) 1 and in Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan, CWP No. 4704/2000 decided on 26.5.2005. 5. The respondents have filed reply to writ petition. Shri B.K. Sharma, Dy. Government Advocate has submitted that there were adverse remarks recorded in four APArs of 1988 to 1992 against petitioner as is evident from Annex.-R. 2-3/1 to R. 2-3/4, which too were communicated to him and without taking note of the same, selection scales of 9 & 18 years' service were granted but when this fact came to the notice of the authority, the same were withdrawn and the decision was taken to defer the selection scales for further four years. 6. 6. Shri B.K. Sharma has also submitted that mere eligibility of having completed 9 & 18 years' service is not sufficient for grant of selection scale unless record of service is also found to be satisfactory, and looking to the adverse remarks recorded in four years (supra), no error has been committed by respondents in taking decision of withdrawal of selection scale in question and deferment thereof for further four years vide order dated 27.5.1995 (Annex. 1). Shri B.K. Sharma lastly urged that since facts on record are not in dispute, compliance of principles of natural justice would not have served any purpose and remained an empty formality, in such circumstances, it was not considered to afford him an opportunity of hearing. 7. I have considered rival contention of the parties and also material on record. This fact remained undisputed that selection scale was granted to the petitioner on completion of 9 & 18 year's service by respondents, which was withdrawn without issuing show cause notice and complying with principles of natural justice while issuing impugned order dated 27.5.1995 (Annex. 1). In my opinion, once selection scale was granted in accordance with Circular dated 25.1.1992 issued by the State Government, a right had accrued and conferred in favour of petitioner, against which no prejudicial order could have been passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing in due compliance of principles of natural justice; moreover, when it involves civil consequences. In this view of matter, action of respondents while issuing order dated 27.5.1995 (Annex. 1) was in clear violation of principles of natural justice and is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Now I consider other aspect of the matter also. The scheme of grant of selection scale has been introduced by the State Government vide Circular dt 25.1.1992, under which selection scales are granted to Government servants on their completion of 9, 18 & 27 years; service, with an object to provide relief to employees who are not having promotional avenues and facing stagnation in service; and as per the circular, first selection scale is to be granted from the date following the day on which one completes service of 9 years, and similarly, second selection scale is to be granted from the date following the day on which one completes service of 18 years and so also after 27 years in existing service/cadre. If clause 3 of Circular dated 25.1.1992 is read with other clauses thereof further depicts that selection scales are to be granted only to those employees whose record of service is satisfactory, which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority. Clauses 3 & 7 of Circular dated 25.1.1992 read as under: "3. The service of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules...." "7. Selection Grade in terms of this order shall be granted only to those employees whose record of service is satisfactory. The record of service which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be considered to be satisfactory for the purpose of grant of the selection grade." 9. Undisputedly petitioner completed 9 years' service from the date of first appointment 7.10.1967 in 1976 and 18 years' service in 1985. In case of the petitioner, adverse remarks are recorded in his APARs of the year 1988-89, which is of subsequent to the year 1985, when he became eligible for grant of second selection scale. It is not the case of respondents that petitioner was not having satisfactory service record either during completion of 9 and 18 years' service from the date of first appointment or earlier he was ever superseded at any point of time while promotions were accorded under relevant rules of recruitment. It has also not been pointed out by respondents that in 18 years' service of petitioner from the date of his first appointment, there was any adversity in his service dossier, which may hold that his record of service was not satisfactory so as to disentitle him for grant of 1st or 2nd selection scale on completion of 9 & 18 years' service. This very controversy was examined by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kuldeep Singh Chouhan (supra), at para 8, which reads as under: "A conjoint reading of all paragraphs of the Circular makes it clear without any doubt that an employee who completes 9 years of service from the date of his first appointment in the existing cadre becomes entitled to get first selection grade, provided his service record is satisfactory. Thus, he becomes eligible to get first Selection grade on completion of 9 years service, as such, his service record to judge his suitability for granting first Selection grade could be of that period and not that of later period. Similar shall be position while examining suitability for second and third Selection Grades on completion of 18, 6 and 27 years of service. The date of Order/Circular i.e. 25.1.1992 prescribes grant of Selection Grades and entitlement of the employees. The eligibility to get first, second and third Selection Grades is completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service. Hence, suitability for grant has to be judged accordingly and the APARs of the preceding years when one becomes eligible to get first, second and third selection grade are relevant. The contention that seven years satisfactory service record should be examined from the date of Order/Circular i.e. 25.1.1992 cannot be accepted as this date is not the date of eligibility. If interpretation, as contended by Shri Gupta is accepted, it would lead to absurdity and serious anomaly. For example, an employee who had already completed 27 years of service on 25.1.1992, having only one adverse entry in the year 1990 before he completed 27 years of service, would be denied all the three selection grades. In other words, in that situation he shall not be entitled to get first and second selection grades and fixation as per the circular, though his service record for 18 years from the date of his appointment may be unblemished and exemplary. This cannot be intention of the circular, nor the various paragraphs of the circular, if read jointly and harmoniously, lead to such conclusion. Similarly, if 7 years service record is examined from 25.1.1992 for judging suitability of an employee to get benefit of selection grades, there may be cases where preceding seven years record from 25.1.1992 may be good but prior to it highly blame-worthy. In that situation also, he shall be entitled to get benefit of all three selection grades and fixation if Mr. Gupta's submission is accepted. Then, if this interpretation is accepted, an employee shall be entitled to get benefit under the order, in spite of the fact that his preceding service record is good but after it becomes highly unsatisfactory. In that situation also, he shall be entitled to get benefit of all three selection grades and fixation if Mr. Gupta's submission is accepted. Then, if this interpretation is accepted, an employee shall be entitled to get benefit under the order, in spite of the fact that his preceding service record is good but after it becomes highly unsatisfactory. The Tribunal has rightly observed while rejecting the contention, "now one can be granted three selection grades on the basis of the same 7 years service record and when some adversity is there that adversity would debar him from all the three selection grades on the same basis. This cannot be the intention of the notification dated 25.1.1992." 10. In similar circumstances in Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan, CWP 4704/2000 (supra). I have occasioned to consider this very controversy. In my opinion employee becomes eligible to get first selection scale on completion of 9 years' service and his service record to judge his suitability for grant of selection scale could be of that period of 9 years from the date of first appointment and not that of later period and suitability for grant of scale has to be judged accordingly and the APARs of the preceding years when one becomes eligible to get first, second and third selection scale are relevant and any adversity subsequent to the completion of 9 or 18 or 27 years' service from the date of first appointment for grant of 1st or 2nd or 3rd selection scale, cannot be considered as it will cause prejudice to him unless span of unsatisfactory service falls within period of either 9 or 18 or 27 years from the date of his first appointment. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, Order dated 27.5.1995 (Annex. 1) is hereby quashed and set-aside. Respondents are directed to restore both the selection scale as granted vide orders dated 17.6.1992 & 14.2.1994 with all consequential benefits. All exercise to comply with aforesaid direction for requisite fixation of pay and computation of arrears and its payment, be made within three months, failing which petitioner will be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., on the arrears from the date of its accrual till actual payment whereof. 12. No order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******