ORDER : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2/2018 : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Briefly noted the facts of the case are that on 20.10.1997, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub Inspector in the respondent Department and in the year 2015, he was promoted on the post of Inspector. The petitioner, while serving the Department, suffered three penalties of censure and one penalty of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effects. The petitioner was entitled for grant of First Selection Grade on completion of nine years of his services in the year 2006. However, on account of grant of four punishments (three censure and 1 annual grade increment without cumulative effect), the first selection grade was deferred for four years and ultimately, the same was granted in the year 2010. After grant of first selection grade in the year 2010, the petitioner was entitled for grant of second selection grade in the year 2015, however, the same was denied to him on account of the fact that he has been granted the first selection grade in the year 2010, therefore, the completion of nine years thereafter will be computed from the date on which he was granted the first selection grade. Since the second selection grade was not granted to the petitioner on its due date i.e. in the year 2015, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has suffered the punishment of deferring first selection grade by four years on account of four punishment orders granted to him in the year 2002 to 2004. Thus, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the second selection grade in the year 2015 for the simple reason that if another period of four years is deferred for grant of second selection grade then the same will amount to double jeopardy. 4. He further submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ram Chandra Meena (D.B. Civil Speal Appeal (Writ) No.356/2014, decided on 23.07.2015. 4. He further submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ram Chandra Meena (D.B. Civil Speal Appeal (Writ) No.356/2014, decided on 23.07.2015. He submits that the order of the Division Bench was also assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing an SLP, however, the same was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.09.2016. 5. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to grant the second selection grade to the petitioner on completion of 18 years of his services in the year 2015 in light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ram Chandra Meena (supra). 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the period of nine years will be computed for grant of second selection grade from the date the petitioner has been granted first selection grade i.e. in the year 2015 in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Shankar Lal Parmar, reported in 2012 0 AIR (SC) 1913. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of second selection grade under the ACP Scheme in the year 2015, and, therefore, he prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 8. In the case of Shankar Lal Parmar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme held that the Government order providing that earning of censure would be a bar for an employee to be granted selection grade for one year and like manner, applies to the facts of the present case to the extent that the same will be deferred for grant of first selection grade but the repeated denial of selection grade on the basis of punishment imposed was not there before Hon’ble Supreme Court for consideration. 9. 9. In the present case, since the penalty of censure has been taken into account for deferring the grant of first selection grade for a period of four years, therefore, the same cannot be considered for deferring the second selection grade which is due to the petitioner in the year 2015. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Meena (supra) has taken note of the situation and has held as under :- “The appellants allowed first selection grade to the respondent petitioner as per the notification dated 25.01.1992 on completion of 9 years of service, however, second selection grade was deferred for a period of five years as during that block of period, he suffered minor penalty of censure on five occasions. The second selection grade was ultimately awarded to him under an order dated 6.2.2008 w.e.f. 24.03.2007. The respondent completed 27 years of service on 24.03.2011 but third selection grade was not given to him in the light of the memo dated 31.12.2009 issued by the department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan mentioning therein that if a financial up-gradation under the Annual Career Progression Scheme is deferred and not allowed due to the reason of employee being unfit or due to departmental proceedings etc. this would have consequential effect on the subsequent financial up-gradation which would also get deferred to this extent of delay in grant of previous financial up-gradation. The respondent-government employee being aggrieved by non grant of third selection grade with effect from 24.03.2011 preferred a petition for writ that came to be accepted by the judgment impugned dated 28.05.2013. The learned Single Bench held that penalty of censure is a minor penalty and that could not have been a ground for denying promotion repeatedly under the criteria of seniority cum merit, therefore, on basis of that, selection grade too could not have been deferred. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that the respondent-petitioner suffered penalty of censure five times and on that ground, second selection grade was deferred for a period of five years. Thus, in view of the memorandum dated 31.12.2009, he was rightly denied grant of selection grade on 24.03.2011. According to the appellants, the respondent-petitioner shall be entitled for third selection grade only in the month of March, 2016. Thus, in view of the memorandum dated 31.12.2009, he was rightly denied grant of selection grade on 24.03.2011. According to the appellants, the respondent-petitioner shall be entitled for third selection grade only in the month of March, 2016. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter in correct perspective. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. It is not in dispute that selection grades are given under the notification dated 25.01.1992 and its subsequent notification dated 17.02.1998 in lieu of promotion with a view to remove stagnation in service. It is also not in dispute that the criteria for grant of selection grade under the notification aforesaid is same as required to be applied while considering the case of Government servant for promotion. In the case in hand, it is admitted between the parties that the criteria for promotion is seniority cum merit, therefore, the case of respondent petitioner for grant of three selection grades is required to be taken into consideration by applying the same criteria. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala & Anr. V/s N.M. Thomas & Others reported in AIR 1976 SC 490 held that under the criteria of seniority cum merit. The term 'merit' means minimum suitability required to hold a promotional post and it is the seniority that shall prevail while considering case for promotion, if a person under consideration is otherwise suitable. In the instant matter, the respondent-petitioner suffered minor punishment and merely on that count, it cannot be said that he was not a person suitable for promotion to the next higher post. In view of it, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty of censure which was taken into consideration for deferring second selection grade could not have been taken into consideration while examining his candidature for the purpose of grant of selection grade. The learned Single Bench, therefore, rightly arrived at the conclusion that minor penalty of censure could not have been a ground for denying promotion repeatedly under the criteria of seniority cum merit and on the basis of this plea, selection grade too could not have been denied. For the reasons given above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed”. 11. For the reasons given above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed”. 11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be granted the second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service i.e. in the year 2015. 12. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider and grant the second selection grade to the petitioner on completion of 18 years of service i.e. in the year 2015, if he is otherwise found fit in accordance with the Rules. 13. The direction given above shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. The stay application and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2427/2018 : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2456/2018 : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5893/2018 : 15. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by a judgment of even date passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2/2018 (Bhanwar Singh Jakhad vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 16. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of judgment passed by this Court in Bhanwar Singh Jakhad’s case (supra).