ASHOK RAM PARHAD & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 900 · Decided: 15-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
ASHOK RAM PARHAD & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 822 of 2023)
MARCH 15, 2023
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
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
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 900
900
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
901
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.