PRAFULLA KUMAR SWAIN ETC. ETC. versus PRAKASH CHANDRA MISRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 18-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

PRAFULLA KUMAR SWAIN ETC. ETC. 
v. 
PRAKASH CHANDRA MISRA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 18, 1993 
A 
[L.M. SHARMA, CJ., S. MOHAN AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
B 
Orissa Forest Service Class JI Recruitment Rules, 1959--R.ules 5, 9, 16, 
~ .,-
24 read with Regulation 12 of Regulation I-Direct Recruit--2 years of train-
ing-Whether to count as service under Govemment--'Recruitment' means 
whether 'appointment"-Seniority of direct recruits-Whether to be reckoned C 
from the date of recruitment. 
_i_ .. 
Orissa Forest Service Class III Recruitment Rules, 1959-Rule 9-f'osts 
of Assistant Conservators-Filling up bypromotion and recruitment-l'romo-
tions to promotees in excess of quota-Whether justiciable. 
Orissa Forest Service Class III Recruitment Rules, 1959--R.ules 
16,2.f-Recruitment under 1959 Rules-Whether 1984 Rules and/or Indian 
Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 applicable. 
D 
Orissa Forest Service Class III Recruitment Rules, 1959-Rules 5, 9-
Recruitment in 1981-<iradation List of 1985-Challenging in 19811-Whether E 
proper. 
The Orissa Public Service Commission through an advertisement 
daed 8.10.64 Invited applications for admission of candidates to a com· 
petitive examination for seleetion to the posts of Orissa Forest Service 
Class II Service. 
F 
The 18 selected candidates were sent for training at the Indian 
Forest CoUege during the year 1965-67. One of the candidates, who suc-
cessfully completed the traiDing was appointed to Class II Service. He 
filed a writ petition in the High Court, as he was asslgued in the list of G 
gradation a rank junior to the promotees, who were confirmed by Service 
Commission after his recruitment. 
The High Court held that the recruitment to class II Service was 
complete only after successful completion of two years' training in the 
Forest College. The appeals by special leave filed against the High Court's H 
241 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Judgment were dismissed by this Court. 
B 
c 
In 1979, the respondent No. 1 (in all the present appeals) was 
directly recruited to the Orissa State Forest Service Class II by the State 
Commission. He was appointed as an Assistant Conservator of Forests, 
after his completion of training for two years at the Forest Service College. 
Respondent No. 1 moved the Administrative Tribunal challenging 
the seniority or the Forest Rangers, who were members or the Orissa 
Subordinate Forest Service and were promoted as Assistant Conservators 
of Forests, when the respondent was undergoing his training. 
Respondent contended before the Tribunal that the seniority or 
direct recruits vis-a-vis the promotees required to be decided on the basis 
of the Orissa Forest Service Class II Recruitment Rules, 1959; that his 
services should be reckoned from the date of recruitment itself and not 
from the date or actual appointment; that the exclusion or the period or 
D two years' training from the purposes of reckoning the seniority was 
illegal; and that the appointment of the promotees in excess of the quota 
prescribed by the Rules and in the absence of any specific order of 
Government providing otherwise was illegal. 
E 
Allowing the petition, the Tribunal held that the respondent No.1 (In 
the present appeals) was entitled to be treated as a direct recruit of 1979 
)·< 
and he be confirmed and promoted on being direct recruit of 1979 and his 
seniority to be fixed on the basis of being a direct recruit of 1979 within 
the 2/3rd quota for direct recruits. 
F 
The present appeals by special leave were preferred by the ag-
grieved parties against the judgment of the Tribunal. 
The appellant in SLP (C) No. 1604 of 1992 submitted that the 
respondent No.1 was selected for undergoing superior Forest Service 
G Course at the Forest Service College in 1979; that having regard to the 
terminology of the order which stated, 'he was selected', it could not be 
held that he could lay a claim to the post; that the Tribunal bad gone 
wrong in its interpretation of the rules that having held !bat both the 
direct recruits as well as the promotees were to undergo probation for a 
period of two years, the period of training for the direct recruit could not 
H count as service; that the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd between direct recruits 
j=
' 
• 
-· 
• 
PRAFULLA SWAIN v. PRAKASH MISRA 
243 
and proDiotees did not apply, if the Government provided otherwise; that A 
the Civil List corrected upto 1982 was published in 1985; and that th

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