Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 40204022 OF 2019
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 1132022 of
2015]
Nand Kumar Manjhi & Anr. etc. …Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. etc. …Respondents
JUDGMENT
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
1. The present Civil Appeals arise out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Digitally signed by
INDU MARWAH
Date: 2019.04.23
17:13:00 IST
Reason:
Nos. 1132011322 of 2015 wherein the impugned Judgment and
1
Order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Patna High Court in Letters
Patent Appeal Nos. 491 of 2013, 257 of 2013 and 509 of 2013 has
been challenged.
2. The factual matrix in the present Civil Appeals is as under:
2.1. The Respondent No. 1 – State of Bihar published an
advertisement on 24.07.1985 inviting applications for filling
up 40 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests (“ACF”)
through direct recruitment under the Bihar Forest Service
Rules, 1953.
On the basis of the examination conducted in December
1985 and , the Bihar Public Service Commission
viva voce
(“the Commission”) prepared a list of successful candidates.
On the recommendations of the Commission, the posts of
ACFs advertised were filled up by the State vide Notification
dated 14.12.1987. On filling up of the advertised posts, the
Merit List got exhausted.
The Appellants, in the present case, had participated in
the selection, but were unsuccessful in getting appointed.
2
2.2. The Appellants and some other candidates who were
unsuccessful in obtaining appointment as ACFs in the 1985
selection, made representations before the Chief Minister on
12.06.1987, the Minister of Forests and Environment on
21.08.1987, and the Secretary, Department of Forests and
Environment on 06.11.1987 for appointment against vacant
posts beyond the 40 advertised posts.
2.3. On 21.10.1987, the State took a decision to fill the existing
vacant posts of ACFs from the list of successful candidates
who had qualified in the Competitive Examination conducted
in 1985 and 1986 respectively, but did not get appointed.
2.4. On 15.02.1988, the State Government sought the names of
13 successful candidates from the Commission, as per the
Merit List prepared pursuant to the selection against the 1985
advertisement.
The Commission vide letter dated 20.02.1988
recommended the names of 12 candidates, which included
the names of the Appellants, for appointment as ACFs.
3
The State issued a Notification dated 13.04.1988
appointing 11 candidates, including the Appellants, from the
list forwarded by the Commission as ACFs.
2.5. On 10.08.1989, 8 more candidates were appointed to the
posts of ACF which fell vacant on account of nonjoining of
candidates appointed vide Notifications dated 14.12.1987 and
13.04.1988. The names of these 8 candidates were also
shown against the 1985 Advertisement.
2.6. On 12.06.1987, the State Government sent a requisition to
initiate the process for appointment of 40 more ACFs through
direct recruitment.
Pursuant to the requisition made by the State on
12.06.1987, a fresh Advertisement for 40 posts of ACFs
through direct recruitment was published by the Commission
on 20.12.1987. The Commission conducted written
examination in September 1988.
The State appointed 35 direct recruits as ACFs on
30.03.1990 against the vacancies notified in the 1987
advertisement.
4
2.7. The State promoted 30 Range Officers, including Respondent
1
Nos. 2132 , as ACFs w.e.f. 30.03.1990 vide Notifications
dated 16/17.08.1990, 18.07.1991 and 02.09.1992,
respectively.
2.8. During the period from 20.06.1987 to 17.10.1987, the State
further promoted 52 Forest Rangers to the post of ACF.
2.9. The Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953 were amended to insert
Rule 3(aa) on 26.12.1989 with retrospective effect. As per
Rule 3(aa), Range Officers of Forests who have passed the
Ranger Course after securing Honours shall be deemed to be
eligible to be appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forests,
and shall be treated as direct recruits.
Rule 3(aa) is reproduced hereinbelow:
“ The appointments of the service shall ordinarily be made
3.
by …
…(aa) The Range Officer of Forest, who passes the Ranger
Course securing Honours shall be eligible for admission to the
2nd year/2 (two) years of State Forest Service Course in
Forestry conducted by Government of India. They shall be
treated as direct recruit to the Bihar Forest Service Cadre (as
Assistant Conservator of Forests) and the provisions as laid
down in the Rule 29, shall be applicable to these selected
Range Officers of Forests… ”
1
Names of Respondent Nos. 2122, 24 and 28 have been deleted from the array of
parties vide Order dated November 6, 2017 passed by the learned Chamber Judge.
5
The State Government vide various Notifications dated
09.03.1990, appointed 10 Range Officers who had obtained
Honours in the Rangers Course, including Respondent Nos. 8
and 9 as ACFs.
2.10. The State published a final Seniority List on 24.07.1989,
wherein the ACFs who were promoted on 06.10.1987 and
23.11.1987, were placed above the Direct Recruits appointed
on 14.12.1987.
Insofar as the Appellants in these Appeals are concerned,
they were accorded seniority w.e.f. the date of their
appointment 13.04.1988.
i.e.
2.11. The Seniority List came to be challenged by the Direct
Recruits appointed on 14.12.1987 by way of CWJC No. 8305
of 1989 before the Patna High Court.
CWJC Nos. 8305 of 1989 culminated in the Judgment
dated 31.05.2004 passed in v.
Sanjay K. Sinha – II & Ors.
2
State of Bihar & Ors. by this Court. It was held that the
appointments of the 1987 Promotees were fortuitous since
they were made against nonexistent posts, and could not
2 [(2004) 10 SCC 734]
6
confer any benefit of seniority from the purported date of
promotion. The final Seniority List dated 24.07.1989 was
quashed, and the State was directed to prepare a fresh
Seniority List. This Court granted liberty to the State to
regularise the appointment of the 1987 Promotees, whilst
holding that seniority could not be given to them over the
Direct Recruits appointed on 14.12.1987. This Court noted
that there were only 133 posts in the Bihar Forest Service,
and not 277 as contended by the 1987 Promotees.
2.12. Upon creation of the State of Jharkhand, several officers from
the Bihar Forest Service were transferred to the Jharkhand
cadre, including some of those who were appointed along with
the Appellants on 13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989.
2.13. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar and creation of the
State of Jharkhand, the validity of the appointments of the
Appellants and other ACFs appointed by the State on
13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989 was discussed at different levels
during President’s Rule in Bihar, as is apparent from the File
Notings placed on record.
7
The Law Department was of the opinion that these
appointments were irregular since they were appointed
purportedly against the advertisement of 1985, even though
the Select List had got exhausted. It was however observed
that cancellation of their appointment would result in
litigation, since the appointments were made on the basis of
the recommendations of the Commission. Furthermore, the
appointees had by now served for about 17 years. It was
suggested that such appointments may be regularised since
they were irregular, but not illegal.
The issue of their inter se seniority visàvis the 1987
Promotees was also considered, and a decision was sought
from the State Government. The proposal for regularisation of
the appointments of these ACFs was submitted for approval
before the Governor on 03.10.2005.
2.14. A perusal of letter dated 15.07.2006 addressed by the
Additional Secretary to the Government to the Secretary,
Bihar Legislative Assembly indicates that the proposal was
approved, and the “
…State Government after Enquiry
regularised these appointments and closed this episode. ”.
8
The Appellants came to be regularised by the State
Government w.e.f. 03.10.2005.
2.15. On 09.03.2010, shadow posts were created by the State since
the “
…working force [was] in excess than created force…since
1987… ”.
The State confirmed the services of the Appellants w.e.f.
03.10.2005, by issuance of Notification dated 04.10.2010.
2.16. On 31.03.2010, a Provisional Seniority List was published,
wherein the Appellants were placed below the Direct Recruits
and Promotees who were appointed w.e.f. 30.03.1990,
Respondent No. 10 – Hemkant Rai, the 1992 Promotees and
the 1995 Promotees.
2.17. Objections were raised by the Appellants regarding their
placement in the Seniority List. A HighLevel Scrutiny
Committee was constituted by the State to look into their
grievances.
The HighLevel Scrutiny Committee rejected the
objections raised by the Appellants.
9
It was noted that they were regularised only w.e.f.
03.10.2005, and hence were not entitled to being placed
above the persons appointed in 1987, 1990, 1992 and 1995.
2.18. The Final Seniority List was published on 02.07.2010. The
Appellants were placed at the bottom of the Seniority List at
Serial Nos. 321 to 338 i.e. below the 1987 Promotees, Direct
Recruits as well as Promotees appointed w.e.f. 30.03.1990,
Respondent No. 10 – Hemkant Rai, the 1992 and 1995
Promotees.
2.19. Several Writ Petitions were filed before the Patna High Court
by various officers appointed in the Bihar Forest Service cadre
to challenge their inter se seniority in the cadre as per the
Final Seniority List dated 02.07.2010.
2.20. The Appellants before this Court filed CWJC Nos.10925,
11160 and 11337 of 2010 to challenge their placement below
the 1987 Promotees (Serial Nos. 167 and 209), Respondent
No. 10 – Hemkant Rai (Serial No. 211) and T.N. Jha (Serial
No. 212), 1987 Direct Recruits (Serial Nos. 215 to 249) and
Promotees (Serial Nos. 250 to 289), some of whom are
Respondents in the present proceedings.
10
2.21. The Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by the
common Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2012 passed by
the learned Single Judge.
The Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants herein (CWJC
Nos.10925, 11160 and 11337 of 2010) were dismissed.
The learned Single Judge held that:
i) The Appellants were rightly placed at the bottom of the
Seniority List since their initial appointments on
13.04.1988, were purportedly from the list of candidates
prepared for the 1985 advertisement. Since the
appointment of the Appellants was beyond the 40
advertised vacancies, it was completely illegal.
II
) The Appellants persuaded the State to appoint them,
which was a rank illegality, which cannot be termed just
as a mere irregularity, or minor deviation from the
Rules.
iii) On a humanitarian basis, the Appellants were deemed
to be regularised w.e.f. 03.10.2005 i.e. the date of their
confirmation in service. This date has to be taken as the
11
legitimate date of entry into the cadre; upto this date
their entry into the cadre was a rank illegality.
2.22. The Appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 257, 491
and 509 of 2013 before a Division Bench against the common
Judgment dated 06.11.2012 passed by the learned Single
Judge of the Patna High Court.
2.23. The Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed by a common
Judgment dated 10.11.2014, wherein it was held that:
I ) The Appellants cannot claim seniority on the principle of
continuous officiation from the date of their appointment
13.04.1988. The seniority accorded to them from the
i.e.
date of their regularisation in the cadre i.e. 03.10.2005,
does not call for any interference in exercise of the
powers of judicial review.
II ) The appointment of the Appellants was illegal, and in
contravention of all canons of service jurisprudence. It
was based on the generosity of the State.
12
iii)The recruitment process commenced pursuant to the
1985 Advertisement for 40 posts of ACFs, was completed
on the appointments made on 14.12.1987.
iv) The recruitment process having been completed, there
was no occasion for the State to make any further
appointments pursuant to the 1985 Advertisement.
v) The Appellants were persons who had not been selected
or recommended by the Commission, nor were they wait
listed candidates.
vi) The appointment of the Appellants ought to be
considered .
non est
vii) The State Government vide Notification dated
04.10.2010 regularised their services w.e.f. 03.10.2005.
3. The Appellants filed the present Special Leave Petitions to challenge
the common Impugned Judgment dated 10.11.2014 passed by the
learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
4. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel, appeared on behalf of
the Appellants, and prayed for setting aside the impugned
Judgment dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Division Bench.
13
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of
the State, and the official respondents from the Department of
Environment & Forests, and Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, Government of Bihar.
Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Advocate, appeared on
behalf of some of the Direct Recruits from the 1990 batch
(Respondent Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19).
5. We have perused the record with the able assistance of the Counsel
for the parties.
The issue which arises for our consideration in the present
Civil Appeals is whether the Appellants have rightly been placed at
the bottom of the Seniority List dated 02.07.2010, by according
them seniority from the date of their regularisation in the service on
03.10.2005, and not from the date of their initial appointment i.e.
13.04.1988.
UBMISSIONS OF ETITIONERS
6. S P
6.1. The counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Appellants
ought to have been accorded seniority w.e.f. the date of their
initial appointment i.e. 13.04.1988. Otherwise, they would
14
lose 17 years of service by being placed at the bottom of the
final Seniority List dated 02.07.2010.
6.2. It was further submitted that the Appellants were appointed
as ACFs on the basis of the recommendation of the
Commission vide letter dated 20.02.1988. The
recommendation was sent after receiving a requisition from
the State Government vide letter dated 15.02.1988.
6.3. All the private Respondents were appointed after the
Appellants in 1989, and thereafter.
6.4. The final Seniority List published by the State on 24.07.1989
was never challenged by the Respondents insofar as it related
to the seniority of the Appellants.
6.5. The action of the State in according seniority to the
Respondents from the dates of their appointment, while
denying the same to the Appellants was wholly arbitrary and
unjustified.
6.6. Both the Appellants and the private Respondents were
appointed beyond the cadre strength, and their appointments
15
were regularised after the creation of shadow posts vide
Notification dated 09.03.2010.
7. S UBMISSIONS OF R ESPONDENTS
7.1. The Counsel for the Respondents defended the common
impugned Judgment dated 10.11.2014, and stated that the
Appellants have correctly been accorded seniority only from
the date of their regularisation w.e.f. 03.10.2005.
i) It was submitted that the appointment of the Appellants
was de hors the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953 since
they were made beyond the 40 vacancies notified by the
1985 Advertisement. The Select List prepared pursuant
to the 1985 Advertisement, stood exhausted with the
appointment of the 39 candidates on 14.12.1987. The
appointments of the Appellants were not in accordance
with the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953.
ii) Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953
mandates that seniority is to be reckoned form the date
of substantive appointment.
16
The Appellants were not appointed against
substantive posts of ACFs on the date of their initial
appointment on 13.04.1988.
iii)The mere continuance in service over a long period of
time, would not entitle the Appellants to claim seniority
from the date of their initial appointment; at best, their
claim could be considered only after they were
regularised w.e.f. 03.10.2005.
iv) It was further submitted that the final Seniority List
published on 24.07.1987 wherein the Appellants had
been accorded seniority w.e.f. the date of their
appointment i.e. 13.04.1988 was quashed by this Court
vide Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2004 in Sanjay K.
3
Sinha – II & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. .
7.2. The Counsel for the State and the Official Respondents
supported the common impugned Judgment and Order dated
10.11.2014, and submitted that the Appellants would be
entitled to seniority only from the date of their regularisation
i.e. 03.10.2005.
3 [(2004) 10 SCC 734]
17
I ) It was submitted that the Appellants were appointed on
13.04.1988 on the recommendation of the Commission
sent on a requisition made by the State, after the Select
List against the 1985 advertisement had got exhausted.
ii) By the Notification dated 09.03.2010, shadow posts were
created for appointments, which were found to have
been made against nonexistent vacancies.
iii)The appointments of the Appellants came to be
regularised on 03.10.2005, after a proposal to that effect
was approved by the Governor.
iv) It was submitted that the inter se seniority of the
Appellants was fixed in the final Seniority List dated
02.07.2010 after obtaining the opinion of the HighLevel
Scrutiny Committee headed by the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, Bihar.
8. D ISCUSSION AND A NALYSIS
8.1. As per Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953, the
seniority of officers appointed to the Bihar Forest Service has
18
to be determined with reference to the date of their
substantive appointment.
Rule 35 is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
“ 35. Seniority of officers appointed to the Service shall be
determined with reference to the date of their substantive
appointment to the Service.
(i) in the case of members of the Service appointed by direct
recruitment at the same time, their seniority inter se shall be
in the order of merit in which their names are placed in the list
of successful candidates at the Final Examination of the
Indian Forest College, Dehra Dun;
(ii) in case where appointments are made to the Service both
by direct recruitment and promotion of selected Rangers at the
same time, the promoted members of the Service shall be
senior to the members directly recruited; and
(iii) the seniority inter se of Rangers on substantive
appointment to the Service by promotion at the same time
shall be their seniority inter se held as Rangers. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Rule 35 came up for consideration before this Court in a
previous round of litigation pertaining to inter se seniority of
the 1987 Promotees in Sanjay K. SinhaII & Ors. v. State of
4
Bihar & Ors. . This Court held that:
“ 12. In this connection we have to note that Rule 35 of the
Bihar Forest Service Rules provides that seniority of officers
appointed to the service is to be determined with reference to
the date of their substantive appointment. In order to become
a member of the service the person concerned has to satisfy at
4 [(2004) 10 SCC 734].
19
least two conditions — first, appointment must be in
substantive capacity, and second, the appointment has to be
to the post in the service according to the Rules and within the
quota to a substantive vacancy (per Keshav Chandra
Joshi v. Union of India [1992 Supp (1) SCC 272 : 1993 SCC
(L&S) 694 : (1993) 24 ATC 545] ).
In the present case neither of the two conditions is
13.
satisfied. The posts to which substantive appointments were
to be made were not available, therefore, there could be no
appointment to the service. When there is no appointment to
the service, much less substantive appointment to the service,
the promotees could not be given seniority with effect from the
purported date of their promotion…
It is settled law that appointments made contrary to the
17.
rules are merely fortuitous and do not confer benefit of
seniority on the appointees over and above the
regular/substantive appointees to the service. (See C.K.
Antony v. B. Muraleedharan [(1998) 6 SCC 630 : 1998 SCC
(L&S) 1624] , M.S.L. Patil, Asstt. Conservator of
Forests v. State of Maharashtra [(1996) 11 SCC 361 : 1997
SCC (L&S) 241] and State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay
Thakre [1995 Supp (2) SCC 407 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 867 : (1995)
30 ATC 132] ). ”
(emphasis supplied)
8.2. An appointment in substantive capacity is one which is not
fortuitous or ad hoc , and is made in compliance with the
5
extant rules and regulations.
8.3. The Appellants had admittedly secured appointment as ACFs
through the backdoor by making various representations to
the Chief Minister on 12.06.1987, the Minister of Forests and
5 Baleshwar Dass & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. , (1980) 4 SCC 226 (paragraphs 31
and 32); O.P. Singla & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. , (1984) 4 SCC 450 (paragraph
81).
20
Environment on 21.08.1987, and the Secretary, Department
of Forests and Environment on 06.11.1987.
Pursuant to these representations, the State appointed
the Appellants on 13.04.1988 purportedly with reference to
the 1985 advertisement. This was completely illegal and
fortuitous, since the posts advertised in 1985 had been filled
up from the merit list.
8.4. Reference may also be made to Rule 24 which provides as
under:
“ No recommendations except those invited in form of the
24.
application will be taken into consideration. Any attempt on
the part of a candidate to obtain support for his application by
other means will disqualify him for appointment. ”
The recruitment initiated by the 1985 Advertisement
culminated with the appointment of ACFs by the State vide
Notification dated 14.12.1987 against the posts advertised.
With their appointment, the Merit List prepared in
pursuance of the 1985 Advertisement stood exhausted, and
6
no further appointments could have been made from it.
6
See Rakhi Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors. , (2010) 2 SCC 637
(paragraphs 7 to 13).
21
8.5. Rule 22 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953 provides for
the preparation of the Merit List on the basis of the aggregate
marks secured by a candidate in the written examination as
well as test. It provides that the Commission shall
viva voce
nominate such number of candidates from the merit list as
may have been fixed by the Governor.
There is no provision for maintaining a Wait List under
the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953.
Hence, the appointment of the Appellants was wholly
illegal and contrary to the statutory rules.
8.6. In the background facts set out hereinabove, it is abundantly
clear that the appointments of the Appellants were made
beyond the vacancies advertised in 1985, which was in
contravention of the wellsettled principle of law enunciated in
7
Rakhi Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors . . The relevant
extract from the decision of this Court in Rakhi Ray & Ors. v.
High Court of Delhi & Ors. is reproduced hereinbelow for ready
reference:
7 (2010) 2 SCC 637 (paragraph 7).
22
“ 7. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be
filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised
as “the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified
vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional
right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the
Constitution”, of those persons who acquired eligibility for
the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules
subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling up
the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither
permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to
“improper exercise of power and only in a rare and
exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a
rule can be deviated from and such a deviation is permissible
only after adopting policy decision based on some rationale”,
otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of
vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of
future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in law.
(Vide Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri [1992 Supp (3)
SCC 84 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 999 : (1992) 21 ATC 851], Gujarat
State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat [1994
Supp (2) SCC 591 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1159 : (1994) 28 ATC
78] , State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees
Union 1986 [(1994) 1 SCC 126 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1994)
26 ATC 500 : AIR 1994 SC 736], Prem Singh v. Haryana
SEB [(1996) 4 SCC 319 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 934] and Ashok
Kumar v. Banking Service Recruitment Board [(1996) 1 SCC
283 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 298 : (1996) 32 ATC 235 : AIR 1996
SC 976] ).”
(emphasis supplied)
8.7. As a result of the persistent lobbying by the Appellants, they
were able to secure appointment as ACFs on 13.04.1988
purportedly against the 1985 Advertisement. The
appointment of the Appellants was wholly illegal, and in
contravention of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953. The
posts advertised in 1985 were duly filled up by the selected
23
candidates. The list of the 1985 advertisement stood fully
exhausted.
8.8. A fresh selection of ACFs through direct recruitment was
initiated pursuant to an advertisement in 1987.
8.9. While the recruitment process pursuant to the 1987
advertisement was underway, the State requested the
Commission to forward 13 names from the list against the
1985 advertisement, which stood exhausted. The Commission
forwarded the names of the Appellants, and some others
purportedly from the list prepared pursuant to the 1985
advertisement letter dated 20.02.1988. This whole
vide
process was completely illegal, as the list of 1985 had got
exhausted.
8.10. In 1987, 52 Forest Rangers were promoted as ACFs.
Further appointments were made through direct
recruitment and promotion in 1990, 1992, and 1995.
8.11. A proposal to regularise the services of the Appellants was
initiated, taking a humanitarian view of the matter, since by
then the Appellants had already served for almost 17 years. In
24
the proposal, it was mentioned that the appointment of the
Appellants as ACFs in 1988 was “irregular”. However, the
cancellation of the appointments at this juncture would result
in further litigation, since it was made on the basis of a letter
from the Commission. The proposal was approved by the
Governor on 03.10.2005.
The State granted confirmation to the Appellants vide
Notification dated 04.10.2010 w.e.f. from the date of their
regularisation i.e. 03.10.2005.
8.12. The State published the Final Seniority List on 02.07.2010.
The Appellants were placed at the bottom of the Seniority List
at Serial Nos. 321 to 338 i.e. below the 1987 Promotees, the
Direct Recruits as well as Promotees of 1990, Respondent No.
10 – Hemkant Rai, the 1992 Promotees, and Promotees of
1995 on the basis of the date of regular appointment as ACF.
8.13. The Appellants raised objections to their position on the
Seniority List, and claimed seniority from the date of their
initial appointment on 13.04.1988 and continuous officiation
till their regularisation w.e.f. 03.10.2005.
25
8.14. In the aforesaid background facts, the Patna High Court was
fully justified in dismissing the Writ Petitions and the Letters
Patent Appeals filed by the Appellants. The High Court rightly
held that the seniority of the Appellants can be reckoned only
from the date of their regularisation in service w.e.f.
03.10.2005, and not from the date of their initial appointment
on 13.04.1988, as claimed by them. The Appellants had
secured an illegal appointment in 1988 through the back
door, which was wholly illegal and de hors the Statutory
Rules. Their services came to be regularised only on
03.10.2005. As per Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules,
1953 the seniority of officers shall be determined with
reference to the date of their substantive appointment to the
service. Hence, the claim for seniority from the date of their
initial appointment was wholly untenable, misconceived, and
contrary to statutory Rules.
8.15. In view of the aforesaid findings, the present Civil Appeals are
dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned Judgment
and Order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Patna High Court
26
in L.P.A. Nos. 491 of 2013, 257 of 2013 and 509 of 2013 is
hereby affirmed.
Pending I.A.s, if any, are disposed of by the present
Judgment.
Ordered accordingly.
…..……...........................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
..….……..........................J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi
April 22, 2019.
27