Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1318 (MP)

BRIJMOHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF M. P.

2006-11-22

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2006
ORDER J.K. Maheshwari, J. This petition has been filed by Petitioner, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, asking following reliefs: (A) The order dated 3-9-2005 (P/7) issued by the Respondent No. 2 be quashed and consequently the Respondents be directed to assign the seniority to the Petitioner w.e.f. 1-2-1978 and to give all the consequential benefits to the Petitioner accordingly, within a specified time. (AA) The order dated 23-2-2006 (P/9) issued by the Respondent No. 1 be also quashed. (B) To award costs of this petition from the Respondents. (C) Any other reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents. It is the case of the Petitioner that the M.P. Public Service Commission had issued the advertisement for selection and appointment to the post of Forest Ranger in the month of October, 1976. Petitioner got selected in that examination and found place at serial No. 14 in the waiting list of the selected candidates Annexure P/1 dated 2-3-1977. He was directed to undergo two years training, which was to commence with effect from 1-2-1978. He had successfully completed the same by January, 1980. Thereafter as per order dated 31-3-1980, issued by the Respondent, he was appointed on the post of Forest Ranger in the pay scale of Rs. 280-480/- with effect from 1-2-1980 i.e. the date of convocation after undergoing the training. The Respondents have passed the order of his confirmation on the post of Forest Ranger on 17-6-1993 and thereafter the seniority list was prepared indicating his name at serial No. 155 in the document Annexure P/3. The gradation list was communicated in the month of September, 2004 through Respondent No. 3, thereon Petitioner had submitted his representation on 28-10-2004 to Respondent No. 2 through proper channel for correction of his seniority in the gradation list Annexure P/3. In the representation Petitioner has requested that that he should be assigned seniority on the post of Forest Ranger with effect from 1-2-1978 i.e. the date of his selection through Public Service Commission and the date on which he had started to undergo the training. It is further urged that grant of seniority from the date of successfully completing training is not proper. It is further urged that grant of seniority from the date of successfully completing training is not proper. However, against inaction of the Respondents on his representation and in the matter of not taking the final decision, he had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 1501/2005. this Court vide order dated 29-3-2005 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Respondents to examine, whether Petitioner is entitled for any relief or not. After passing the order by this Court in the earlier round of litigation Petitioner has again submitted a representation Annexure P/6 which was rejected as per the order dated 3-9-2005 Annexure P/7. Challenging that order Petitioner has filed this petition. On issuing the notices, Respondents have again passed the order dated 23-2-2006 Annexure P/9. The order Annexure P/9 has also challenged by the Petitioner by amending the writ petition. It is submitted by Learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner that as per the notification issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh Annexure P/8 dated 10-12-1972, it is apparent that period of training of the Forest Rangers ought to have been treated within regular service and the increment for the period of training is also permissible to them. In view of the aforesaid facts it is specifically urged by learned senior counsel Shri A.K. Sethi that the action of the Respondents to not to grant the seniority to him with effect from 1-2-1978 i.e. the date of undergoing the training is arbitrary. It is also submitted that after the recommendations made by the committee headed by Justice K.L. Pandey, the Government had taken decision as per Annexure P/8 dated 10-12-1972, however, denial of seniority to the Petitioner with effect from 1-2-1978, by counting the period of training as regular service is contrary to the resolution. It is further urged that the rejection of representation as ordered by the Government Annexure P/9 dated 23-2-2006 is without application of mind and based on fortuitous reasons which is not permissible. It is said that rejection of the representation has been ordered merely on the ground that because of the notification Annexure P/8 dated 10-12-1972 is a resolution of the Government and secondly the benefit of such resolution has not yet allowed to any of the Forest Rangers in the State; which cannot be the basis, to deny the legitimate and legal right to the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid submissions learned senior counsel submits that the action of the Respondents to not to fix the Petitioner's seniority with effect from 1-2-1978 is arbitrary. The rejection of the representation Annexure P/9 is also contrary to the notification Annexure P/8 dated 10-12-1972, therefore, the orders Annexure P/7 and P/9 deserve to be quashed and the direction may be issued to grant seniority to the Petitioner with effect from 1-2-1978 in place of 1-2-1980. Per contra Shri Raghuveer Singh, Dy. Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondents/State, submits that return has been filed by the Government wherein it is not disputed that the Petitioner was selected through M.P. Public Service Commission and permitted to undergo the training with effect from 1-2-1978 at Central Forest Ranger College, Chandrapur (Maharashtra). It is also not disputed that Petitioner has successfully completed the aforesaid training on 1-2-1980. It is also not disputed that he was appointed as per order dated 31-3-1980 as Forest Ranger in the scale of Rs. 280-490/- . It is said that the order Annexure P/7 dated 3-9-2005 has rightly been passed by the Chief Conservator of the Forest, Bhopal. Thereafter the Government has further passed an order Annexure P/9 dated 23-2-2006. Copies of both these orders have been placed on record. It is further said by the Respondents that the recruitment and promotion of the Petitioner on the post of Forest Ranger is governed by the Rules which are known as M.P. Class III Non-Ministerial Forest Services Recruitment Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called as "Rules" for short). Under the Rules and in view of the facts of the present case the appointment of the Petitioner was made by way of direct recruitment as Forest Ranger. The order of appointment of direct recruitees are required to be issued as per the provisions enumerated under Rule 13(1) of the Recruitment Rules, whereby in the case of the Forest Rangers and Foresters, the order of appointment be issued to them on completion of the training, following the date of convocation, and according to their merit obtained in the final examination of training, in the college or school. However, after successful completion of the training, the order of appointment dated 31-3-1980 Annexure P/2 was issued appointing him with effect from 1-2-1980 (i.e. the date of convocation) and in terms of the merit obtained by the Petitioner in the final examination. However, after successful completion of the training, the order of appointment dated 31-3-1980 Annexure P/2 was issued appointing him with effect from 1-2-1980 (i.e. the date of convocation) and in terms of the merit obtained by the Petitioner in the final examination. It is further said that the document Annexure P/8 is the notification of the Government dated 10-12-1972, merely a resolution of the Government passed on the recommendations of the committee headed by Justice K.L. Pandey. Such committee was constituted for the purpose of making recommendations of the pay and scales of the Forest Rangers, however, the recommendations of such committee cannot override the provisions as enacted under Recruitment Rules. It is further urged that such recommendation, if accepted by the Government is not having overriding effect to the provisions of Recruitment Rules enacted in exercise of the powers of the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under the Rules the appointment of direct recruitees as Forest Rangers will be on completion of training, from the date following the date of convocation and according to merit of that examination. In such circumstances and in view of the specific provisions made under the Rules the appointment of the Petitioner cannot be treated with effect from 1-2-1978 i.e. the date of initiation of the training; it can only be treated with effect from 1-2-1980 i.e. the date of completion of the training. It is further said in the return that the determination of the seniority of an employee may be made in accordance with the provisions as specified under M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. However, in view of the provisions as enacted under the Recruitment Rules, as well as under Rule 12 of the General Conditions of the Service Rules, 1961, seniority of the Forest Rangers can be reckoned in view of the merit obtained in the final training examination in that college. The orders of appointment under the Rules are required to be issued on completion of the training from the date following the date of convocation, therefore, the order of appointment of the Petitioner has rightly been issued with effect from 1-2-1980 and in accordance with the merit obtained by him in the college. Thus seniority is to be reckoned from the date of issuance of the order of appointment with effect from i.e. 1-2-1980 and not from 1-2-1978. Thus seniority is to be reckoned from the date of issuance of the order of appointment with effect from i.e. 1-2-1980 and not from 1-2-1978. This petition was heard upto some length on 4-10-2006 and after hearing the case Respondents were directed to clarify the object of issuance of the notification Annexure P/8 dated 10-12-1972. During the course of hearing learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Government has submitted the order passed by the Government on 18-9-1973, whereby it is clarified that the benefit of the notification Annexure P/8 dated 10-12-1972 shall be given to all the Forest Rangers in the matter of fixation of the pay by fixing them two stage ahead in the increments. In view of such document furnished to the Court today, and in view of the language of the notification Annexure P/8 as well as under. the Recruitment Rules it is urged by Learned Counsel for Respondents that benefit of the resolution Annexure P/8 cannot be granted to the Forest Rangers in the matter of fixation of their seniority. By the aforesaid submissions learned Dy. Government Advocate submits that petition filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for parties and perused the record. After hearing and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that services of the Petitioner who is Forest Ranger are governed by the Rules. It is also not in dispute that the seniority of the employees of the State are governed by the M.P. Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961. To determine the seniority no other provision is available under the Rules. Notification Annexure P/8 dated 10-12-1972 which is the essence of the argument of the Petitioner is available on record, whereby it is apparent that the recommendations of M.P. Vetan Ayog, 1972 were objected by various Unions of the State of Madhya Pradesh. To resolve such objections a committee headed by Justice K.L. Pandey was constituted. Such committee had resolved the objections which were arrived at in the matter of fixation of pay by the Pay Commission of 1972. To resolve such objections a committee headed by Justice K.L. Pandey was constituted. Such committee had resolved the objections which were arrived at in the matter of fixation of pay by the Pay Commission of 1972. In the matter of Forest Rangers Government has resolved that if the Forest Ranger successfully completed their training then the period of such training ought to have recognised a regular service and on successful completion of the training increment deserves to be allowed to them. The argument of the learned senior counsel Shri A.K. Sethi, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, is that in view of such recommendations period of training ought to have counted as regular service and, therefore, the seniority should be reckoned from the date of initiation of the training. The argument of learned senior counsel may be attractive but of no substance; because the notification Annexure P/8 as issued by the Government on 10-12-1972, is in the matter of deciding the objections on the recommendations on the Pay Commission of 1972. Any of the recommendation which is being made and notified by way of the extraordinary Gazette of the Government Annexure P/8 having its effect only to grant the pay and scale to the particular post. Such notification which is related to recommendation of the Pay Commission cannot have any effect in the matter of determination of the seniority. At the same time it is to be observed that the language of such notification indicated that the period of training should be treated as regular service and the benefit of the increments has been directed to be ordered, this indicate that the recommendations as made which is accepted by the Government by way of this resolution. Annexure P/8 having co-relation to the grant of benefit of increments. It is having nothing to do with the matter of determination of seniority. By common reading of the notification Annexure P/8 and the order passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh which is filed today, it is apparent that Forest Rangers are entitled for two additional increments while fixing their pay in the scale in which they were appointed. Thus, the object and to extend the benefit of notification Annexure P/8 is apparent by the language of both the documents produced before the Court. Thus, the object and to extend the benefit of notification Annexure P/8 is apparent by the language of both the documents produced before the Court. Respondents in their return has filed a copy of the Recruitment Rules, Rule 13 is relevant for the purpose of determination of the dispute involved in the present case which is being reproduced hereinbelow: Appointment of direct recruits - (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the candidates will be considered for appointment to the various posts except Forest Rangers and Foresters against the available vacancies in the order in which their names appear on merit basis in the list drawn up by the Government. The direct recruits who undergo the prescribed course of training in Forest Rangers and Foresters Courses will, on completion of training be appointed from the date following the date of convocation and according to the merit obtained in the final examination at the college/school. The inclusion of a candidate's name in the select list confers no right to appointment unless the Government is satisfied, after such enquiry as may be considered necessary, that the candidate is suitable in all respects for appointment to the Service. Bare perusal of the Rule, it is apparent that if the direct recruitee is required to undergo the prescribed course of training; which is required to the posts of Forest Rangers and Foresters, then the appointment on the post of Forest Rangers and Foresters be made on completion of the training from the date following the date of convocation, and according to the merit obtained in the final examination at the college/school. The language of aforesaid rule, makes it clear that on completion of the training the order of appointment be issued to the Forest Rangers from the date of convocation and in terms of the merit obtained by them in the final examination of the college/school. However, in the present case Petitioner was sent for training on 1-2-1978 and he has successfully completed that training on 1-2-1980 i.e. the date of convocation. The order of appointment issued on 31-3-1980 but with effect from retrospective date i.e. 1-2-1980 i.e. date of convocation. Petitioner's name has found place in that order in terms of the merit obtained in the final examination at the college/school. The order of appointment issued on 31-3-1980 but with effect from retrospective date i.e. 1-2-1980 i.e. date of convocation. Petitioner's name has found place in that order in terms of the merit obtained in the final examination at the college/school. In such circumstances it is apparent that on successfully completing training which is followed by the convocation is an integral part of the process of selection, but the order of appointment is required to be issued in terms of the provisions as enumerated under Rule 13 of the Recruitment Rules. In that view of the matter and in view of the language of the General Condition Rules seniority of the Forest Rangers shall be reckoned from the date on which they have successfully completed their training and passed out the convocation parade, and in accordance with the merit obtained by them in the final examination of the college. Thus, in view of the specific language of Rule 13 and after going through the object of the notification Annexure P/8 dated 10-12-1972, as discussed hereinabove, it is to be held that the recommendations as made by the notification cannot be decisive in the matter of determination of seniority of Forest Rangers. It is having co-relation in the matter of grant of increments or the fixing of the pay and not otherwise. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that seniority of directly recruited Forest Rangers and Foresters are governed by Rule 13 and not by the notification Annexure P/8 dated 10-12-1972. However, while rejecting the representation, if some other reasons have been assigned by the Respondents in the Annexure P/7 dated 3-9-2005 and Annexure P/9 dated 23-2-2006 is of no consequence. While deciding the representation of the Petitioner Annexure P/7 and P/9, if any, findings recorded by the Government, which is contrary to the interpretation of the rules or language of the notification Annexure P/8 as discussed hereinabove, cannot be a ground to quash such orders. While deciding the representation of the Petitioner Annexure P/7 and P/9, if any, findings recorded by the Government, which is contrary to the interpretation of the rules or language of the notification Annexure P/8 as discussed hereinabove, cannot be a ground to quash such orders. Consequently, it is to be held that seniority of the Petitioner cannot be reckoned with effect from 1-2-1978 i.e. the date of starting of his training but it shall be reckoned with effect from 1-2-1980 i.e. the date of successful completion of training and the date, following convocation, and according to the merit obtained in the final examination of the college, in terms of Rule 13 of the Recruitment Rules as well as the General Conditions of Service Rules, 1961. In that view of the matter Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the present case. Accordingly, this petition is having no merit and it is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed