Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant petition has been filed against order dated 03.02.1993 (Exhibit 6) whereby his claim for 3rd selection scale was rejected and so also letter dated 25.04.1992 (Exhibit 7) whereby adverse remarks communicated in his APARs for years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and rejection of his representation vide order dated 112.1993. 2. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner was initially appointed as LDC on 30.08.1991 in office of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Respondent No. 1 - "PSC") and promoted as UDC on 01/04/1974 and so also as Office Assistant on 27.09.1984 and further as Section Officer vide order dated 212.1998 pendent writ petition as informed by Counsel for Respondent No. 1and while holding post of Section-Officer, petitioner on attaining age of superannuation retired from service on 31.03.2000. .3. Grievance of petitioner is that on completion of 27 years of service from the date of his initial appointment 30.08.1961, he became entitled for 3rd selection scale in terms of Government Circular dated 25.01.1992 which has also been adopted by the PSC; and rejection whereof vide order dated 03.02.1993 (Exhibit 6) is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. .Counsel for the petitioner contends that no material has been disclosed while recording adverse remarks in APARs in question, which has been communicated after 4 years and despite representations submitted, the same has been rejected by a non-speaking order which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of his contention, Counsel relied on decisions or this Court in Tekchand vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1994 (2) WLC 688, and Satyanarain Shah vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1996 (2) WLC 180. 4. Counsel further urged that petitioner was entitled for 3rd selection scale on completion of 27 years on 31.08.1988; as such service record of 27 years of service from initial appointment can alone be considered to adjudge suitability and adversity of later years could not have been looked into while forming opinion about unsatisfactory service for refusal to grant 3rd selection scale. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance on decision of this Court in Jai Krishna Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (3) CDR 2052 (Raj) = [ 2005 (8) RDD 3003 (Raj.)]. 5. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance on decision of this Court in Jai Krishna Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (3) CDR 2052 (Raj) = [ 2005 (8) RDD 3003 (Raj.)]. 5. Respondents in their reply inter alia averred that apart from adverse remarks in question for years 1988-89 and 1989-90, over all service record is also not satisfactory, he was inflicted with penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 24.05.1990 and further penalty of recorded warning vide order dated 26.02.1991 and so also penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 010.1992, which on appeal, was reduced to one annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 23.02.1993. It has also been averred in the reply that there were adverse remarks also recorded in his APARs of years 1991-92 and 1992-93 - against which he preferred civil suit before competent Court of jurisdiction, which too has been dismissed; as such adverse remarks for years 1991-92 and 1992-93 have attained finality. .6. Counsel for respondent PSC contends that in view of adverse record of service, no error was committed by authority competent in rejecting claim of petitioner for 3rd selection scale. So far as adverse remarks in dispute are concerned, Counsel urged that nature of remarks recorded, delay in communication whereof in no manner be said to be fatal or has not cause any prejudice in submitting representation and reasons were not required to be disclosed while rejecting representation. Counsel further contends that in view of third promotion on the post of Section Officer after filing of instant petition with effect from 012.1998 even otherwise he is not entitled for 3rd selection scale as claimed .on completion of 27 years service. 7. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. It is not in dispute that petitioner got three promotions of UDC., Office Assistant and Section Officer in his service career of 38 years. Object for grant of selection scale in terms of Circular dated 25.01.1992 is to remove stagnation of employee who are not getting their promotion despite eligibility and this Circular was made applicable to all Government servants in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts and drawing pay in Revised Pay Scales, 1989. Object for grant of selection scale in terms of Circular dated 25.01.1992 is to remove stagnation of employee who are not getting their promotion despite eligibility and this Circular was made applicable to all Government servants in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts and drawing pay in Revised Pay Scales, 1989. Circular dated 25.01.1992 is not applicable to Government servants in State services as defined in Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and those in Selection Grade of Rs. 2200-4000/-. Clause 2 of Circular dated 25.01.1992 which deals with eligibility condition for grant of 1st, 2nd and 3rd selection scale reads as under:- 2. (i) The first selection grade shall be granted from the date following the day on which one completes service of nine years, provided that the employees has not got one promotion earlier as is available in his existing cadre. (ii) Thesecond selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of eighteen years, provided that the employee has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first selection grade granted to him was lower than pay scale of Rs. 2000-4000. (iii) Thethird selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of twenty seven years, provided that the employee has not got three promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first or the second selection grade granted to him as the case may be was lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000." Clause 2 (Supra) makes entitled for selection scales only to those who have not got one/two/three promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and earlier selection grade granted to him, as the case may be, was lower than the pay scale under the Rules. 8. 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 case is to be granted from the date following the day on which one completes service of 18 years and so also after 27 years from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre. 9. 9. If Clause 3 of Circular dated 25.01.1992 is read with Clause 7 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 and 7 of Circular dated 25.01.1992 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." As per the scheme, eligibility to get first, second and third Selection Grades is on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Suitability for grant of selection scale has to be judged on the basis of service record and unsatisfactory record of service may deprive from grant of selection scale and completion of 9 or 18 or 27 years service makes the incumbent eligible for consideration under the Scheme. 10. Undeniably, petitioner got 1st promotion as UDC on 01.04.1974 and 2nd promotion as Office Assistant on 27.09.1984 and his claim is for grant of 3rd selection scale as he completed 27 years service on 30.08.1988. However, pendente writ petition, as petitioner has been further promoted as Section Officer vide order dated 012.1998. Submission made by Counsel for petitioner that 3rd selection scale became due to him on 30.08.1988 when he completed 27 years service from the date of his initial appointment, which would not be deprived to him merely because of third promotion subsequently accorded of Section Officer on 012.1998, in my opinion, has substance but 3rd selection scale becomes due only in case of record of his service being found satisfactory as provided under Clause 7 of Circular dated 25.01.1992. Undoubtedly, there were adverse remarks in record of his service, which consists of APARs of years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and so also in subsequent years. Undoubtedly, there were adverse remarks in record of his service, which consists of APARs of years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and so also in subsequent years. Thus viewed, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the decision of respondents by way of rejection of claim of petitioner for grant of 3rd selection scale vide order dated 03.02.1993 (Exhibit 6). 11. Submission made questioning communication of adverse remarks in dispute on the ground that no material has been communicated to petitioner on the basis whereof adverse remarks were recorded and delay in communication, is concerned, in my opinion, is of no substance for the reason that in view of nature of adverse remarks communicated is based on subjective satisfaction of reporting/reviewing officer which cannot be made subject matter of challenge under limited scope of judicial review, unless based on no material or perversity to the record or influenced by malice being imputed against officer recorded adverse remarks. There cannot be any material which is expected to be placed on record to support adversity in record and that apart, in my opinion, in absence of any malice imputed by incumbent, no adverse inference can be drawn and delay in its communication, too has to be looked into on bare facts of each case and in instant case, delay alleged in no manner was fatal having caused any prejudice to the petitioner in submitting representation. 12. Judgment on which Counsel for petitioner placed reliance, are not applicable particularly when petitioner got third promotion as Section Officer on 012.1998 and retired from service after getting in all three promotions in whole service and looking to over all service record of petitioner, I do not find any error apparent in passing of orders impugned. (Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7). 13. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.