LexSRI K. PRASAD & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SRI K. PRASAD & ORS. A v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DECEMBER 10, 1987 [RANGANATH MISRA AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] B Service matter-Seniority dispute raised by initial recruits and direct recruits of the Indian Forest Service (I.F.S.) from the States of Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh & Orissa. Controversies relating to the seniority of the officers in the Indian C Forest Service (l.F.S., for short) in this batch of cases from the States or Maharashtra, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh, arose as asequal to three deci- sions of this Court in regard to the constitution of the Indian Forest Service,. in Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150; Parvez Qadir v. Union of India, 119721 2 SCR 432 and Union of India v. Chothia, [ 1978] 3 SCR 652. The Court had to consider in these cases the ques- D tions arising out of the selections made by the Special Selection Boards (S.S. Bs.) in place of the selections set aside by the Kraipak case above- mentioned, and was concerned with the initial recruitment under sec• tion 4(1) of the I.F .S. (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. The first selections by way of initial recruitments to the State E cadres were made some-time in 1966 and 1967. The Kraipak decision > came in 1969: In the meanwhile, in many of the States, the first selec- tion had been made followed up by subsequent recruitments largely • made on the basis of competitive examination under rule 4(2)(a) of the Recruitment Rules and a few also, by promotion under rule 4(2)(b). As a result of the second (and third) selections made by the S.S.B., a F number of officers in the respective State Forest Service (S.F.S.) had been given appointment in the IFS with effect from October 1, 1966, under rule 4(3A) and were placed in a position of higher seniority vis-a-vis the recruits-direct recruits-under rule 4(2). The direct recruits ~ were dissatisfied with this. Iu the case of Uttar Pradesh, nine petitioners moved the High Court for relief, out of whom, eight-direct recruits of 1968 and 1969 confirmed between 1969 and 1972 came up in appeal to this Court. In this State, the initial recruitment was made in 1966-67 of 85 officers, 58 G to the posts in the senior time scale and 27 to the posts in the junior time scale. Sl)bsequently, six persons were promoted under rule 4(2)(b) and H 285 286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] 2 S.C.R. A nine persons were recruited under rule 4(2)(a) of the Recruitment Rules. the initial recruitment having been declared bad, a fresh S.S.B. was appointed and, on its recommendations, 104 persons were appoin- ted to the service, 60 to senior scale posts and 44 to junior scale posts. Again, in 1976, six more persons were added and thus no persons were taken in by way of initial recruitment as against 85 persons taken in the B first selection. The direct recruits were aggrieved by these selections. c Their case was rejected by the High Court. In the case of Maharashtra, the first selection was made on 2.2.1967 of 57 officers-36 for the senior time scale and 21 for the junior time scale. This was set aside. On July 13, 1971, at the second selection, 116 officers were found eligible but only 66 were considered suitable for appointment. 39 out of 51 eligible officers were found sui- table for the senior scale, of whom, 35 were appointed immediately and four, later. For junior scale 27 were found suitable, out of whom 23 were appointed initially and four, later. All these 66 appointments were made w.e.f. t.10.1966. Some persons, who had joined the State Forest D Service in 1962 and had put in 4 years' service as on 1.10.1966, and were thus eligible for consideration for junior scale posts, filed a writ petition in the High Court. Their grievance was that the government had not considered all the officers who were eligible for the junior posts, as should have been done as laid down in the Chothia case afore- mentioned. The High Court allowed the writ petitions. Some of the E respondents, comprising persons, who had been directly recruited under rule 4(2) between 1968 and 1970, appealed to this Court against the decision of the High Court. -< In the case of Orissa, eight persons moved this Court by Writ Petitions. They had joined the Orissa State Forest Service as on F 1.4.1962. After two years' training, they had been appointed Assistant Conservators of Forests on 1.4.1964. By 1.4.1966, they had four years' continuous service in the State Cadre. They had become eligib
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.