LexH.S. VANKANI AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 485 H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2439 of 2010) MARCH 16, 2010 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: A B Seniority ~ HELD: Is a civil right which has an important . c and vital role to play in one's service career and is also significant for good and sound administration - It is reiterated · that seniority once settled, should not be unsettled - Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 - Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment D Examination) Rules 1974. RANGERS (SUBORDINATE FOREST SERVICE) RE<;RUITMENT RULES, 1969 - rr. 7, 10, 13 and 141 RANGERS (SUB ORD/NA TE FOREST SERVICE RECRUITMENT EXAM/NATION) RULES 1974 - rr. 7, 8 (as E amended in 1979), 18(as amended in 1983), 21 and 22: Range Forest Officers in State of Gujarat - Seniority of non-graduates (1979-81 batch) and graduates (1980-81 batch) - HELD: Government had rightly taken the decision F deputing the non-graduates (1979-81 batch) to a two year training course and graduates (1980-81 batch) to a one year training course - Seniority of both the batches had been rightly settled by orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987 placing graduates (1980-81batch) above non-graduates -G (1979-81 batch) and the seniority so redetermined had attained finality, but, the Government committed an error in unsettling the seniority under its proceedings dated 29.9.1993 - There is no illegality in the judgment of the High court in 485 H 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A quashing the order dated 29.9.1993 and upholding the seniority of the candidates of 1980-81 batch over the candidates of 1979-81 batch as had been determined as early as on 12. 10. 1982 - Interpretation of statutes. B INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: Strict interpretation - HELD: Courts have to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads to an unworkable, inconsistent or impracticable results - In the instant case, strict interpretation of r.10 of 1969 Rules and r.18 of 1974 C Rules was unworkable and literal interpretation would have . resulted in absurd results - The decision taken by the government in deputing the non-graduates (1979-81 batch) to a two year training course and graduates (1980-81 batch) to a one year training is in due compliance with r.10 of 1969 D Rules and r.18 of 1974 Rules and the seniority of the both batches has been rightly pettled by orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987 - Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 - Ranger (Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment Examination) Rules 197 4- Maxim 'ut res E magis valeat quam pereat'. Range Forest Officers in the State of Gujarat were selected under two different sets of Rules, namely, Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) ~ecruitment Rules, 1969 and Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service F Recruitment Examination) Rules 1974. Earlier, the educational qualification for the post under both the Rules was Intermediate pass and the selected candidates were deputed to a two year training course in Forest Rangers Colleges. Their seniority was determined on the basis of G the marks obtained in the final examination in the Forest Rangers College. With the amendment in r.8(1) of the 1974 Rules in 1979, educational qualification was substituted to graduation and further in the year 1983 two year training course provided in r.18 of 1974 Rules was H H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 487 AND ORS. reduced to one year. The graduate candidates (1980-81 A batch), the respondents, were deputed to one year training course which they completed in February 1981 and they were appointed as Range Forest Officers in March 1981; whereas the non-graduates (1979-81 batch), the appellants, though selected earlier than the B respondents, completed their two year training course after the graduates of 1980-81 batch had been appointed, and, as such, they were appointed Range Forest Officers later. When the issue of seniority was raised by the appellants, the Government, by its communication dated c 12.10.1982 held that graduates (1980-81 batch) would rank senior to the non-graduates (1979-81 batch), and the gradation list was published accordingly in the year 1983. This position was again reiterated by the Government by its communication dated 5.3.1987. In the provisional D gradation list published in the year 1989 also the respondents were shown
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.