JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for appellants. No one is present on behalf of respondents despite service of notice. 2. This intra court appeal is directed against the order of Single Bench dated 22.2.2011 whereby Writ Petition No.16428/2010, filed by writ petitioner/respondent Hari Prasad Meena, has been allowed and respondents (present appellants) have been directed to consider the case of writ petitioner for promotion without taking note of the penalty of censure inflicted upon him vide order dated 21.1.2010. 3. Submission of learned counsel for appellant is that Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the Rajasthan Rules in the matter of selection grade and has held that it cannot be said that an employee who has earned censure would automatically be entitled for promotion or respective selection grade after the completion of 9, 18 or 27 years of service in the case of State of Rajasthan & others v. Shankar Lal Parmar, reported in AIR 2012 SC 1913 . He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and writ petition filed by respondents is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for appellants, but we could not get any assistance from the side of respondent despite service of notice upon him. We have also examined the impugned order passed by Single Bench and other documents available on record. 5. The writ petition was preferred by respondent before Single Bench challenging the order whereby he was denied the benefit of promotion on the basis of penalty of censure awarded against him. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the basis of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Ram Khilari Meena v. State of Rajasthan & others, 2011 (1) WLC (Raj.) 220 , wherein this Court took a view that penalty of censure could not have been considered as impediment to give a promotion on seniority-cum-merit basis. Although learned Single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition as Division Bench of this Court had taken a view that minor penalty of censure or minor adverse remarks are no ground of denying promotion, based on seniority-cum-merit. Although learned Single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition as Division Bench of this Court had taken a view that minor penalty of censure or minor adverse remarks are no ground of denying promotion, based on seniority-cum-merit. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the same point in the case of State of Rajasthan & others v. Shankar Lal Parmar (supra), wherein it has been held that an employee is not entitled to get promotion automatically despite the fact that he has been awarded with the penalty of censure. Paras 18, 19 and 22 of the judgment in State of Rajasthan & others v. Shankar Lal Parmar (supra), are reproduced hereunder:- "18. It has not been disputed before us that censure is a minor penalty and has a minimum penalty as prescribed under the Rules of Rajasthan. Thus, it cannot be said that an employee who has earned censure would automatically be entitled for promotion or respective Selection Grade after the completion of 9, 18 or 27 years of service. 19. However, we need to clarify that during the interregnum period between the first Office Order, issued on 25.01.1992 and the subsequent clarificatory Office Order/letter dated 24.07.1995, some of the employees were granted the benefit of Selection Grade. The appellant - State would not be entitled to claim refund from such employees who have already been granted benefit in this period. The subsequent Office Order/letter further makes it clear that all those employees who have earned censure in service shall also be entitled for the selection grade but the grant of Selection Grade to them would be deferred by one year. This appears to be an absolutely reasonable and perfect classification as otherwise every employee who has a clean image and another employee, who has earned censure would be treated at par. This is not permissible in the service jurisprudence and is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 20. xxx xxx xxx 21. xxx xxx xxx 22. In the case in hand, it is a question of grant of Selection Grade. A Selection Grade has higher pay but in the same post. A promotion post is a higher post with higher pay. 20. xxx xxx xxx 21. xxx xxx xxx 22. In the case in hand, it is a question of grant of Selection Grade. A Selection Grade has higher pay but in the same post. A promotion post is a higher post with higher pay. A Selection Grade is intended to ensure that capable employees who may not be able to get a chance of promotion on account of limited outlets of promotion, should at least be placed in the Selection Grade to prevent stagnation at the maximum of the scale. Selection Grade was created to remove stagnation in service and consequently leading to greater efficiency. State has permitted grant of Selection Grade to those who had good service record but for those who had earned censure, the same has been deferred by one year. Thus, according to us, it would clearly fall in the category of reasonable classification which is permissible in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution and also on account of various judgments pronounced by this Court on this topic from time to time." 6. There is no dispute so far facts of the case are concerned that respondent was awarded the penalty of censure. Although it is a minor penalty but it is also relevant for the purpose of granting promotion. The present matter is fully covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & others v. Shankar Lal Parmar (supra). 7. In view of above discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of Single Bench dated 22.2.2011 and dismiss the writ petition of writ petitioner/respondent. However, case of respondent for promotion will be considered as per directions given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & others v. Shankar Lal Parmar (supra).Appeal Allowed. *******