Settled seniority cannot be altered after decades without satisfactory justification and an opportunity of hearing.

The applicant and Respondent No. 5 were selected through the Indian Forest Service Examination, 1992. Although the applicant ranked higher in the UPSC merit list, Respondent No. 5 was subsequently shown as senior in an inter-se seniority list issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 15.03.2005, where Respondent No. 5 was placed at Rank 18 and the applicant at Rank 24.

For approximately three decades, however, the applicant was consistently shown above Respondent No. 5 in service-confirmation records, promotion orders, screening committee proceedings, Joint Cadre Authority minutes, and the Assam-Meghalaya IFS Civil Lists. The applicant was also shown as senior in the draft IFS Civil List for 2023, prepared with the approval of the competent State authorities.

Respondent No. 5 submitted a representation dated 01.07.2023 claiming that his All-India Seniority Number was lower than the applicant’s and that he was therefore senior. The Ministry, by communication dated 19.10.2023, clarified that Respondent No. 5 was senior under the 15.03.2005 inter-se seniority list. This clarification was communicated to the applicant on 01.11.2023.

The applicant challenged the communications dated 15.03.2005, 19.10.2023 and 01.11.2023, contending that his settled seniority could not be altered after thirty years without notice or an opportunity of hearing. He also sought consideration for promotion to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the HAG+ scale at Level 16.

1. Whether the respondents could alter or clarify the applicant’s inter-se seniority vis-à-vis Respondent No. 5 after approximately thirty years of settled service records and seniority positions?

2. Whether the alteration of the applicant’s seniority without prior notice or an opportunity of hearing was legally sustainable?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the HAG+ scale at Level 16, subject to suitability?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Rule 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1997 requires preparation of a yearly gradation list for each State or Joint Cadre, containing officers arranged according to seniority.

Rule 11 of the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Rules, 1968 was relied upon by the Union Government as the basis for determining inter-se seniority of officers appointed through different examination batches.

The Tribunal applied the principle in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors., relying on Sant Ram v. State of Rajasthan, that once seniority has been fixed and remains operative for a reasonable period, a belated challenge ordinarily should not be entertained; generally, three or four years is a reasonable period, subject to satisfactory explanation for delay.

The Tribunal also applied the principles of natural justice, holding that an officer’s settled seniority could not be altered adversely without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been treated as senior to Respondent No. 5 consistently since their appointment, including in confirmation records, promotion-related proceedings, screening committee minutes, Joint Cadre Authority proceedings, and successive service lists.

Although the respondents relied on the 15.03.2005 inter-se seniority list and the respective All-India Seniority Numbers, Respondent No. 5 had not challenged the applicant’s seniority for approximately thirty years and offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Applying the rule against belated challenges to settled seniority, the Tribunal held that the subsequent attempt to place Respondent No. 5 above the applicant was unsustainable.

The Tribunal further noted that the applicant was not afforded any prior notice or hearing before his seniority position was altered, rendering the decision procedurally defective.

Since the applicant was treated as senior and both officers were eligible for consideration for the higher post, the respondents were directed to consider the applicant’s promotion, subject to suitability.

It directed the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the HAG+ scale at Level 16, with consequential benefits, subject to suitability.

The pending miscellaneous application, if any, was disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.