1997 (3) TMI 614 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Government of Gujarat's resolution dated January 31, 1992.
2. Seniority determination of Assistant Conservators of Forests.
3. Retrospective effect of the resolution on seniority.
4. Validity of the seniority lists and select lists for promotion.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Government of Gujarat's Resolution Dated January 31, 1992:
The resolution dated January 31, 1992, was passed by the Government of Gujarat to treat the training period of directly recruited Assistant Conservators of Forests as part of their service for the purpose of seniority. The Division Bench of the High Court held that this resolution was inconsistent with the Assistant Conservator of Forests (Gujarat Forest Service Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1981 (1981 Rules) and thus invalid. However, the Supreme Court found that the 1981 Rules did not contain any provisions regarding the fixation of seniority. Therefore, it was permissible for the State Government to issue an administrative order, and the resolution dated January 31, 1992, did not suffer from any legal infirmity.

2. Seniority Determination of Assistant Conservators of Forests:
The 1981 Rules govern the recruitment and appointment of Assistant Conservators of Forests but do not explicitly address the seniority of directly recruited officers. The Supreme Court noted that in the absence of specific rules, the State Government could lay down principles for seniority through administrative orders. The resolution dated January 31, 1992, aimed to address the grievances of direct recruits by counting their training period towards seniority, aligning with practices in other states and recommendations from the Forest Research Institute.

3. Retrospective Effect of the Resolution on Seniority:
The resolution was challenged on the grounds that it had a retrospective effect, adversely affecting the rights of promotee officers. The Supreme Court held that since the 1981 Rules did not prescribe any principle for seniority, the resolution did not alter any existing rights or principles. The provisional seniority lists issued before the resolution were found invalid as they did not include directly recruited officers, indicating that no final seniority principle had been established prior to the resolution.

4. Validity of the Seniority Lists and Select Lists for Promotion:
The provisional seniority list dated August 5, 1987, and the final seniority list dated October 27, 1988, did not include directly recruited officers and were thus invalid. The select list for promotion to Deputy Conservator of Forests, prepared on October 24, 1989, and approved on July 19, 1990, was also found defective because it did not consider the requisite number of candidates. The Supreme Court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision to quash these lists and directed the preparation of a fresh select list based on the revised seniority list following the resolution dated January 31, 1992.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had struck down the resolution dated January 31, 1992, and the seniority list dated January 29, 1993. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Special Civil Application filed by the promotee officers and allowing the application filed by the directly recruited officers was restored. The appeals were allowed, and the resolution dated January 31, 1992, was upheld as valid. The seniority lists and select lists prepared before the resolution were invalidated, and new lists were to be prepared based on the principles laid down in the resolution.