Divisional Forest Officer (in Maharashtra Forest Service, Class I) (Recruitment) Rules, 1984 – Proviso to r.2 – Maharashtra Forest Service, Group A (Junior Scale) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998 – rr.3(b), 6 – Appellants who were recruited in 2014 and underwent a training, were appointed to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF) through nomination (direct appointment) in 2016 whereas respondent nos.4 to 9 were directly promoted to the post of ACF in 2014 and were not required to undergo the aforesaid training – Appellants filed application before Tribunal for declaration that their appointment be considered from the date of commencement of the training and, that the training period undergone be considered as period of service – A direction was also sought for payment of salary as per the pay scale prescribed for the post of ACF by considering the period of training as on probation/duty – Tribunal partly allowed the appellants’ application – Review application filed by respondent no.1 was dismissed – Thereafter, Government accepting the judgment, passed Resolution resolving that successful completion of training period would be considered as regular service from the date of inception of training for all service purposes – The Resolution also provided that the ACF appointed by nomination shall be considered from the initial date of their training and the seniority will be considered accordingly – Respondent nos.4 to 9 filed writ petition before the High Court on the ground that though they were promoted as ACF before the appellants but were shown junior to the appellants in the seniority list of ACF – High Court opined that the respondents would not be affected by the Tribunal’s order to the extent of directing payment of salary and the pay scale to the appellants from the date of initiation of the training period, as the respondents’ right would only be affected while considering the seniority vis-à-vis promotion to the post of Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) – Direction of the Tribunal to pay salary to them as per the pay scale was found reasonable – With regard to the seniority, the High Court held that the seniority of persons selected for the post of ACF by nomination shall be counted from the date of issuance of appointment order after successful completion of training qua the person appointed to ACF by promotion – On appeal, held: Proviso to r.2 of the 1984 Rules is unambiguous – Appointment is different from the recruitment process, which starts with the commencement of training – High Court’s view is correct – Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules – In the present case, the resolutions have been passed in the context that the person who successfully completes the training effectively gets the monetary compensation for his training period and is not deprived of the same – This cannot amount to giving seniority from the date of initial recruitment process to determine inter se seniority, when the Proviso to r. 2 of the 1984 Rules makes the date of appointment for direct recruits clear – Even if the Government Resolution dated 25.01.1990 upgraded the post of ACF from Class II to Class I, the Proviso to r.2 of the 1984 Rules will continue to hold valid in determining the period of service – Further, rr.3B and
6 of the 1988 Rules leave no ambiguity and in fact read in consonance and the period of probation has to be necessarily excluded from period of service – The resolutions neither speaking about promotion to the post of DFO nor about seniority conclusively, the Proviso would operate with full force – Entrance and Training Rules (Revised) for the State Forest Service Officers, 2004 – Constitution of India – Art. 309.
Service Law – Government resolutions vis-à-vis statutory rule – Held: In service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail – There can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with the same – Government resolutions issued by the Administrative Department cannot have the status of a statutory rule.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail. There can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with the same. The statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, i.e., the 1984 Rules, Rule 2 refers to the appointment to the post of the DFO and the same to be made by promotion from amongst officers of the Maharashtra Forest Service and also by appointment directly. The Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules is unambiguous and quite clear, i.e., the period spent on training at Government Forest Colleges and other period of probation including extended period of probation, if any, “shall not be counted towards the requisite period of service.” Thus, what is envisaged is that the appointment is diff erent from the recruitment process, which starts with the commencement of training. There can be possibilities of a candidate not completing the training satisfactorily, thereby resulting in the candidate’s removal on probation. Such probation period can also be extended to see whether a candidate improves in performance. (Hence, even if the Government Resolution dated 25.01.1990 upgraded the post of ACF from Class II to Class I, the Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules will continue to hold valid in determining the period of service.) [Para 25][911-F-G; 912-A-B]
1.2 In the aforesaid context if this Court turns to the 1998 Rules, more specifically Rule 3(b), the stipulation is that in case of a nomination, the same is based on the result of the competitive examination held by the Commission in accordance with the Rules and the candidate is required to have “successfully completed the training course.” Rule 6 provides for probation for a period of three years including two years of ACF training course and one year field training, as decided by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. Thus, even reading of these extant Rules makes the process for such direct recruitments quite clear. The Entrance and Training Rules (Revised) for the State Forest Service Officers, 2004 (“2004 Rules”) are comprehensive in character and set forth how the recruitment process will take place. On behalf of the appellants there is overemphasis on the expression “person appointed to the post by nomination” under Rule 6 of the 1998 Rules, without appreciating the context in which such expression has been used. In contending that the interpretation given by the High Court would amount to making the opening part of Rule 6 otiose, what is lost sight of is that were the appellants’ plea to be accepted, it would amount to making the Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules otiose. The Government resolutions issued by the Administrative Department cannot have the status of a statutory rule although such resolutions may have their own effect. The High Court’s view is the correct view. The resolutions have been passed in the context that the person who successfully completes the training effectively gets the monetary compensation for his training period and is not deprived of the same. This cannot amount to giving seniority from the date of initial recruitment process to determine inter se seniority, when the Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules makes the date of appointment for direct recruits clear. This is also in the background that while the direct appointees have no experience in the field having been freshly recruited, the promotees have been doing the task. In the present case, the very factum of Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules being inserted in the rule has to be assigned a meaning, as otherwise, it would imply that the Proviso has become otiose. It cannot be said that the Proviso is not to be read in the context of the aspect of promotion. Rules 3B and 6 of the 1988 Rules also leave no ambiguity in this behalf and in fact read in consonance and the period of probation has to be necessarily excluded from period of service. The grant of monetary benefit is a different aspect. On having come to the conclusion that the Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules, and the resolutions neither speaking about promotion to the post of DFO nor about seniority conclusively, the Proviso would operate with full force. The applicable Rules leave no ambiguity in the matter and must prevail. [Paras 26-32][912-C-H; 913-A, C-F]
R. S. Ajara & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (1997) 3 SCC 641; Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra & Ors. (1993) 3 Supp SCC 181; Commandant, 11th Battalion, A.P. Special Police (IR) v. B. Shankar Naik (2003) 5 SCC 580 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.