R.S. AJARA AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 03-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
R.S. AJARA AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
MARCH 3, 1997 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.1;. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Service Law-c-Assistant Conser.valor of Forests (Gujarat Forest Service 
Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1981-lnter se seniority between the directly 
recruited officers and the promotee officers -Rules, providing for appointment 
A 
B 
and not for fixation of senion"ty-Govemment resolution of 1992 laying down C 
the principle regardingfzxation of seniority-Held, the resolution was not l'iola-
tive of the Ru/es-Inclusion of training period for purposes of seniority-Held, 
valid. 
In the State of Gujarat, the Assistant Conservator ot· Forests 
(Gujarat. forest Service Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1981 (the 1981 D 
Rules) provided for appointment on the post of Assistant Conservator of 
Forests by promotion from amongst persons working as Range Forest 
Officers as well as by direct selection through, the Gujarat Public Service 
Commission. Under the Rules, candidates selected for appointment by 
direct selection are required to undergo a course in forestry for two years E 
at an institution recognised by the Government and to obtain a diploma 
or degree in Forestry. The Rules make provision for payment of tuition 
fees, stipend and tour expenses for the said two years. After completion of 
training the selected candidate is appointed as Assistant Conservator of 
Forests on probation for a period of two years. 
Deputy Conservator of Forests is the next higher post. Recruitment 
F 
to the said post is governed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Gujarat 
Forests Service) Recruitment Rules, 1987. Under it, appointment to the 
post is made by promotion from amongst persons holding the post of 
Assistant Conservator of Forests and who have put in at least eight years G 
service. The said period of eight years included the training period in the 
Forest College. 
The appellants in the present appeal were appointed on the post of 
Assistant Conservator of Fores ts by direct selection in 1979. They were sent 
for training-in 1980. After two years training they were appointed as H 
597 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A As,sistant Conservator. of Forests in 1982. In 1987, the Gujarat government 
issued a provisional seniority list for the cad.re of Assistant Consei;vator 
of Forests. A final seniority list was issued in 1988. None of the lists 
contained the names of the appellants. 
In 1989, the government prepared a select list for the purpose of 
B promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests. The list did not 
include the ·names of the appellants. Another provisional seniority list 
which was issued in 1990 included their names but their training period 
of two years was excluded. A civil suit was filed by the direct recruits 
seeking an injunction restraining the government from implementing the 
C 1990 seniority list. In the said suit, the Gujarat government filed a purshis 
agreeing in principle to take into consideration the training period af 
direct recruits for the purpose of seniority. 
The promotee officers filed special civil application in the High 
Court praying it to restrain the government from revising the seniority list 
D of 1988 and to direct it to make promotions on the basis of the s.elect list 
of 1989. Another special civil application was filed by the directly recruited 
officers for directing the government to consider the petitioners for promo-
tion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests and to quash the select 
list of 1989. During the pendency of the said Writ Petitions the government 
E passed the:impugned resolution dated January 31, 1992 and issued a 
provisional seniority list on January 29, 1992. The promotee officers 
challenged the resolution as well as the seniority list. 
Both Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by a Single 
Judge, holding that the 1981 Rules did not make any provision regarding 
F fixation of seniority and that it was permissible for the government to lay 
down the principle for fixation of seniority of direct recruits by the 1992 
resolution. The provisional seniority list of 1987 and the final seniority list 
of 1988 were declared invalid as they did not contain the names of direct 
recruits who were selected in 1979. The select list that was prepared for 
G the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests 
was declared illegal. The 1992 resolution was upheld as valid. Quashing 
the 1989 list, 

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