BABU LAL ARORA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Instructions issued by Government of Rajasthan vide Annex. 5 dated 25. 1. 1992 provide three selection grades to the employees in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services on the expiry of 9 years, 18 years and 27 years of service, in case the incumbent of the post does not get any promotion and is stagnated. The first selection grade is admissible after 9 years, if there is no next promotion post in the same service/cadre for 9 years and the second selection grade is admissible in case, there is no second promotional post in the same service or cadre or the employee does not possess the academic qualification and similarly third selection grade is admissible when there is no third promotion post in the same service/cadre. The relevant part of the instructions are reproduced as under: 1. This order shall be 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 the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 3200/ -. This order shall not apply to Government servants in the State Services as defined in the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and to those who have got Selection Grade of Rs. 2200-4000 in terms of this order. 2 (i) The first Selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of nine years, provided that the employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in his existing cadre. (ii) The second 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 Gra- de granted to him was lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. (iii) The third Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of twenty seven years, provided that the employees 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.

(2.) A curious proposition leading to very anamolous situation, arisen in the present writ petition, is that if some of the employees get all three promotions, admittedly, they cannot avail of the benefit of the instructions reproduced above and in case the scale of the promotional post happens to be lower than the respective selection grade, they are placed in a disadvantageous situation viz-a-viz their juniors who do not either fulfil the qualification or have failed to pass the requisite test and are, therefore, not promoted at all, but still they do fall under the ambit of the instructions (Annex. 5) and are permitted to avail the selection grade which selection grade is higher than the scale of the post of promotion in which they would have been placed in case they had passed the test. This situation results in hostile discrimination viz-a-viz their seniors who laboured hard, prepared for the test, got first, second and third promotions and are placed in the scale of promotional post, but juniors of such promotees who some how do not come up to the expectance either because of the reason that they do not possess the requisite qualification or unable to qualify the test, are placed on higher padestrial so far as the pay-scale is concerned after expiry of 9, 18 and 27 years as the case may be, i. e. such employees who are awarded the selection grade as per Annex. 5, even if they happen to juniors, get more emoluments in selection grade than employees who are senior, but are posted on promotional post, scale of which post happens to be lower than the selection scale.

(3.) THE Division Bench of this Court is DB Special Appeal No. 127/94 decided on 11. 12. 1995 had held as under: "6. A person is appointed not just for a job, but for whole career and he should be given an opportunity to advance, but should not be humiliated for his being more meritorious. THE respondent was found to be more meritorious than Dr. S. N. Mathur and was placed above latter, therefore, he cannot be given lesser pay than that of Dr. S. N. Mathur. THE doctrine of justice and fair play requires that the person, who is higher in merit does not draw less salary. THE status of the senior or more meritorious candidate in the matter of fixation of emoluments viz-a-viz person, who is placed in lower merit in the same scale is required to be safeguarded. It would be quite unfair to fix him in a lower pay scale than that of lesser meritorious and junior candidate. 7. It is not inherently unfair if someone has more than anybody else, but only if others are done out of their due. THErefore, in our opinion, on the doctrine of justice and fair play the respondent is entitled to have his emoluments stepped up equal to that of Dr. S. N. Mathur. 8. THE doctrine of justice and fair play also requires that a man cannot be unfairly treated with his own consent. We think that the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the appellant University to step up the pay of the respondents to the same which was accorded to Dr. S. N. Mathur w. e. f. the date of his appointment on the post of Rea- der in the Department of Mathematics alongwith the arrears that may fall due as a result of the stepping up has done justice between the parties in the matter. We would, therefore, like to decline to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Bench as it has broadly done justice between the parties. "