LexNANI SHA AND ORS. versus STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--!" --< r NANI SHA AND ORS. A v. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. MAY 16, 2007 [H.K. SEMA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) B Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service Rules : Rule 5-Promotion to post of Assistant Conservator of Forest-50% of c substantive vacancies occurring from time to time to be filled up by direct recruitment and remaining such vacancies to be filled liP by promotion- Proviso added in 1999 laying down that posts filled by direct recruitment and promotion not to exceed 50:50ratio-Government filling up posts by promotion in 2004 and giving effect to such promotions from 1994-Held, the rule before 1999 amendment did not fix 50:50 quota, therefore, promotions D made in 2004 cannot be given retrospective effect from 1994-lnterpretation of statutes-Amendment to rule-Whether can be given retrospectiva effect- Proviso added to rule-Whether c/arificatory in nature. Rule 5 of the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Service Rules, before its amendment by Notification dated 24.9.1999, provided, inter alia, that 50% of E the substantive vacancies of Assistant Conservator of Forest, which occur from time to time in the authorized permanent strength of the service, would be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining such substantive vacancies would be filled by selection from amongst officers who substantially held the posts ofForest Rangers. By Notification dated 24.9.1999 a proviso was added to Rule 5 to the effect that the posts actually filled by direct recruitment and F Y promotion in the Grade II at any time would not exceed 50:50 ratio in the authorized permanent strength of Grade II posts. The appellants were appointed as Forest Rangers in the year 1984. After completing 5 years service, according to the Rules, they had become entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of ACF. But they were, in fact, promoted on 10.6.2002. G Meanwhile the respondents were directly appointed as ACF through competitive examination in the year 1996. The Government, pursuant to the representations made, constituted another DPC and by an order dated 20.5.2004 awarded notional promotion to the appellants with retrospective effect from December 1994. By this order all the appellants became senior to ion H 1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R. A all the directly appointed respondents and, therefore, the latter group challenged the order dated 20.5.2004 before the High Court in a writ petition. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition. The writ appeal of promotee officers having been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, they filed the instant appeal. B It was contended for the appellants that Rule 5 and the proviso appended thereto in the year 1999 clarifying the position, laid down 50% quota for directly recruited officers and the remaining 50% quota for the promotee officers and as such the latter were rightly promoted with retrospective effect. On the other hand, it was contended for the respondents directly recruited i'~ C officers that in the Scheme of the Rules there was no 50:50 quota between direct appointees and promotees before 1999, and the said rule clearly provided that 50% of substantive vacancies which occur from time to time would be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining such vacancies were to be filled by promotion. He further submitted that Rule 5 underwent a change and by Notification dated 24.9.1999 a proviso was added, which for the first time D introduced 50:50 quota without any retrospective effect. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. Considering the plain language of the unamended Rule there 1 can be no dispute that earlier what was contemplated by Rule 5 was only to E fill by direct recruitment 50% of the "substantive vacancies which occur from time to time in the authorized permanent strength of service". The Rule does not contemplate that there shall be a separate quota for the two categories from out of the cadre strength. The condition of the two categories having 50:50 strength came only by way of amendment. A perusal of the plain F language of the proviso shows that the position becomes all the more clear. Atleast from the plain language of unamended Rule 5 it cannot be said that there was any quota for the two categories much less in the ratio of 50:50. There was no evidence that the Government was all through treating, even before 1999, that there was a 50:50 quota in between the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.