CW 2717/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.2717/2010 Mangi Lal Sharma Versus Registrar Co-operative Societies Jaipur & Ors Date of Order : 25/02/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Vijay Poonia, for petitioner Petitioner while initially having joined service as Inspector Gr.II (Executive) in Co-operative Department on being appointed on compassionate grounds vide order dt. 21/10/1995, taking note of it being regular appointment, was considered for promotion and on recommendations of departmental promotion committee, was promoted as Inspector Gr.I (Executive/Audit) against vacancy year 2000-01 vide order dt.05/12/05 under Rajasthan Co- operative Subordinate Services (Class-I) Rules, 1955; and since he was promoted as Inspector Gr.I much before the benefit of 1st selection scale on completion of nine years, was denied to him vide order dt.20/10/08 (Ann.4). Counsel submits that since the petitioner has been promoted for all practical purposes vide order dt.05/12/05, prior thereto, selection scale became due on completion of nine years in terms of FD CW 2717/10 //2// Circular dt.25/01/92, rejection of his representation is arbitrary and deservesto be set aside. In the opinion of this Court, submission made by Counsel is without substance for the reason that under scheme of service Rules, if a person has been promoted against vacancy of earlier year, he is always entitled for notional fixation of pay which protects service benefits having become due to an employee as in the instant case, petitioner has been promoted on the recommendations of DPC against vacancy of year 2000-01, his notional fixation of pay has to be made from 01/04/2000 and from the date of order of promotion dt.05/12/2005, is having no relevance and that being so, promotion having been granted to the petitioner against vacancy of year 2000-01 prior to completion of nine years, benefit of selection scale vide order dt.20/10/08 (Ann.4) have rightly been denied. This Court finds no justification to interfere. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/ 2717CW10Fb25.doc