LexUTTRARANCHAL FOREST RANGERS' ASSON. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UTT ARANCHAL FOREST RANGERS' ASSON. (DIRECT RECRUIT) AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] Service Law: U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991: Rule 8. Seniority-Forest Rangers-Direct recruits vis-a-vis Promotees- Appointments against prescribed quota-Unfilled vacancies-Ad hoc A B c . promotion-Seniority on basis of-Permissibility of-Jn the State forest department, during the period 1969-1979, there was no direct appointment D to the post of Forest Rangers-Government kept promoting Deputy Forest Rangers on ad hoc basis to the post of Forest Rangers, if any vacancy arose- However, as on 30. //.1989, there were not enough vacancies in the promotee quota to accommodate all the regularized Forest Rangers-By the year 1991, all the 124 regularized Forest Rangers were accommodated-Jn 1991, there was only one vacancy in the promotep quota-Some candidates, were E substantively appointed on the post of Forest Rangers by direct recruitment on various dates in 1990-However, some promotee-Deputy Forest Rangers were promoted to the post of Forest Rangers 'from the date of taking charge'- In the seniority list, the direct recruits were placed senior to the promotees- But the High Court directed that the said seniority list be corrected by F showing the promotees as senior to the direct recruits-Correctness of- Held: Promotion in excess of quota makes an employee an ad hoc employee and seniority cannot be given to such employees on the basis of ad hoc promotion-Seniority can be given only from 'the date of substantive . appointment '--Seniority has to be decided on the basis of Rules in force on the date of appointment-Moreover, no retrospective promotion or seniority G can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validly in the mean time-High Court judgment set aside-State Government directed to revise seniority list. 609 H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A In the State forest department, during the period 1969-1979, there was no direct appointment to the post of Forest Rangers. The State Government kept promoting Deputy Forest Rangers on ad hoc basis to the post of Forest Rangers, if any vacancy arose. However, as on 30.11.1989, there were not enough vacancies in the promotee quota to accommodate all the regularized B Forest Rangers. By the year 1991, all the 124 regularized Forest Rangers were accommodated. In 1991, there was only one vacancy in the promotee quota. However, the State sent a requisition to the Public Service Commission to recommend 410 persons for promotion to the post of Deputy Forest Rangers. The appellants were substantively appointed on the post of Forest Rangers by direct recruitment on various dates in 1990. 356 Deputy Forest Rangers were C promoted to the post of Forest Rangers 'from the date of taking charge'. In the seniority list, the appellants were placed senior to the respondents- promotees. On challenge, the High Court directed that the seniority list be corrected by showing the respondents-promotees as senior to the appellants- direct recruits. Hence the appeal. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court has correctly appreciated that vacancies arose in tl;e year 1987-88, but has failed to appreciate that these vacancies were filled by regularizing 124 persons who were carrying on as Forest Rangers on an ad hoc basis. If the orders of the High Court are to be given effect to, E then 356 Deputy Forest Rangers would become entitled to promotion in excess of quota. It is well settled that promotion in excess of quota makes an employee an ad hoc employee and seniority cannot be given to such employees on the basis of ad hoc promotion. (623-F-H[ F Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, (1992[ Supp. 1 SCC 272, Sanjay Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar, (2004J 10 SCC 734 and D. Ganesh Rao Patnaik v. State of Jharkhand, (2005( 8 SCC 454, relied on. P.N. Premachandran v. State of Kera/a, (20041 I SCC 245 and A. Janardhana v. Union of India, [1983[ 3 SCC 601, referred to. G Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India, [20001 8 SCC 25, cited. 2.1. The High Court has granted seniority without reference to Rule 8 of the U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991, and in particular the proviso thereto has not been taken into consid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.