2010 (3) TMI 1152 - SC - Indian Laws

Inter-se seniority between two batches - direct recruits Range Forest Officers 1979-81 batch (non-graduates) and 1980-81 batch (graduates) of the Subordinate Forest Services and their further promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests - HELD THAT - We are of the view that the Government has committed a grave error in unsettling the inter se seniority of the graduates and non- graduates which was settled as early as in the year 1982. The State Government in its letter dated 12.10.1982 had taken the view that two years training was imparted to non-graduates of 1979-81 batch and one year training was imparted only to graduates of 1980-81 batch since candidates with lesser qualification required through training compared to the candidates with higher qualification. Strict interpretation of Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of 1974 Rules was unworkable and literal interpretation would have resulted in absurd results. When the educational qualification prescribed was pass in intermediate examination the legislature wanted the candidates to undergo training for two years. But when the higher educational qualification of graduation was prescribed the statute was silent as to the period of training the candidates have to undergo. Even the non- graduates were not sent for training in the colleges mentioned in the Rules but were sent to some other colleges where the duration of course was two years and the candidates of 1980-81 batch was sent for training to the colleges which conducted course of one year duration. Such a course was adopted since the rules were found to be unworkable. It is a well known Rule of construction that the provisions of a statute must be construed so as to give them a sensible meaning. The above legal principles clearly indicate that the courts have to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads to an unworkable inconsistent or impracticable results since such a situation is unlikely to have been envisaged by the Rule making authority. Rule making authority also expects rule framed by it to be made workable and never visualises absurd results. The decision taken by the government in deputing the non-graduates (1979-81 batch) to a two year training course and graduates (1980-81 batch) to a one year training is in due compliance with Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of 1974 Rules and the seniority of the both batches has been rightly settled vide orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987 and the government has committed an error in unsettling the seniority under its proceedings dated 29th September 1993. We therefore find no illegality in the judgment of the High court in quashing the order dated 29th September 1993 and upholding the seniority of the candidates of 1980-81 batch over the candidates of 1979-81 batch. Appeal therefore lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Inter-se seniority between two batches of direct recruits Range Forest Officers (1979-81 non-graduates and 1980-81 graduates).
2. Promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests.
3. Interpretation and application of the Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 and 1974.
4. Validity of government decisions and resolutions regarding training duration and seniority.
5. Impact of training duration on seniority and promotions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inter-se Seniority between Two Batches of Direct Recruits:
The case revolves around the seniority dispute between two batches of Range Forest Officers in Gujarat. The 1979-81 batch consisted of non-graduates who underwent a two-year training, while the 1980-81 batch consisted of graduates who underwent a one-year training. The seniority was to be determined based on the respective ranks in the final examination, irrespective of the date of joining the service, as per Rule 14 of the 1969 Rules and Rule 22 of the 1974 Rules.

2. Promotion to the Post of Assistant Conservator of Forests:
The seniority issue also affected the promotion prospects of the officers to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. The non-graduates argued that their delayed appointment due to a longer training period should not affect their seniority and subsequent promotions.

3. Interpretation and Application of the Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 and 1974:
The recruitment and training of Range Forest Officers were governed by the 1969 and 1974 Rules. Rule 3 of the 1969 Rules required a minimum educational qualification of intermediate examination for direct selection, while Rule 8 of the 1974 Rules, amended in 1979, required a bachelor's degree. Rule 10 of the 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of the 1974 Rules mandated a two-year training period, which was later amended to one year in 1983.

4. Validity of Government Decisions and Resolutions Regarding Training Duration and Seniority:
The government initially decided that non-graduates required more intensive training due to their lower educational qualifications, resulting in a two-year training period. This decision was communicated in 1982 and reflected in gradation lists published in subsequent years. However, in 1993, a note was issued suggesting that the 1979-81 batch should be placed above the 1980-81 batch, which was contrary to the established rules and previous government decisions.

5. Impact of Training Duration on Seniority and Promotions:
The court held that the government committed a grave error in unsettling the seniority that was established in 1982. The decision to provide different training durations based on educational qualifications was found to be reasonable and in compliance with the rules. The court emphasized that seniority should not be unsettled once it is established, as it affects the morale and career progression of the officers.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Gujarat High Court, which quashed the 1993 government order and maintained the seniority of the 1980-81 batch over the 1979-81 batch. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the seniority should be governed by the respective ranks in the final examination, and the government resolutions and decisions made in 1982 and 1987 were correct.

← Previous Next →