NAND KUMAR MANJHI & ANR. ETC. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 653 · Decided: 22-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
653
NAND KUMAR MANJHI & ANR. ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4020-4022 of 2019)
APRIL 22, 2019
      [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953 – rr.3(aa), 22, 24 & 35 –
Respondent No.1-State published advertisement on 24.07.85 inviting
applications for filling up 40 posts of Assistant Conservator of
Forests (ACF) through direct recruitment – Posts filled up vide
Notification dtd.14.12.87– Appellants participated in the selection
but were unsuccessful in getting appointed – Appellants with some
other unsuccessful candidates made representations inter alia to Chief
Minister, Minister of Forests and Environment for appointment
against vacant posts beyond the 40 advertised posts – Commission
recommended the names of 12 candidates, including the appellants,
for appointment as ACFs – Notification dtd. 13.04.88 issued
appointing 11 candidates, including the appellants – In 1987, 52
Forest Rangers were also promoted as ACFs – Further appointments
were made through direct recruitment and promotion in 1990, 1992
and 1995 – Proposal to regularise the services of the appellants
approved by the Governor on 03.10.05 – Appellants confirmed vide
notification dtd. 04.10.10 w.e.f. from the date of their regularisation
i.e. 03.10.05 – State published the Final Seniority List – Appellants
placed at the bottom of the Seniority List, below the 1987 Promotees,
the Direct Recruits and Promotees of 1990, the 1992 Promotees,
and Promotees of 1995 – Objected by the appellants – Appellants
filed writ petitions – Dismissed – LPAs also dismissed – Held: As
per r.35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953, the seniority of
officers appointed to the Bihar Forest Service has to be determined
with reference to the date of their substantive appointment – An
appointment in substantive capacity is one which is not fortuitous
or ad hoc, and is made in compliance with the extant rules and
regulations – Appointment of the appellants were made beyond the
vacancies advertised in 1985 – Appellants admittedly secured
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 653
653
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
appointment as ACFs through the back-door by making various
representations and persistent lobbying – Pursuant to these
representations, the State appointed the appellants on 13.04.88
purportedly with reference to the 1985 advertisement – This was
illegal and fortuitous, since the posts advertised in 1985 had been
filled up from its merit list which stood fully exhausted – There is no
provision for maintaining a Wait List under the 1953 Rules– Hence,
the appointment of the appellants was wholly illegal and contrary
to the statutory rules – Proposal to regularise the services of the
appellants was initiated, taking a humanitarian view, since by then
the Appellants had already served for almost 17 years – 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. 03.10.05,
and not from the date of their initial appointment on 13.04.88, as
claimed by them – Impugned judgment affirmed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1  As per Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service
Rules, 1953, the seniority of officers appointed to the Bihar Forest
Service has to be determined with reference to the date of their
substantive appointment. An appointment in substantive capacity
is one which is not fortuitous or ad hoc, and is made in compliance
with the extant rules and regulations. The Appellants had
admittedly secured appointment as ACFs through the back-door
by making various representations to 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. 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.  [Paras 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3][666-D;
668-A-C]
1.2 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 no further
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
655
appointments could have been made from it. Rule 22 of the Bihar
Forest Ser

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