Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1558 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Mahesh Sureshbhai Parmar

2024-07-15

A.S.SUPEHIA, MAUNA M.BHATT

body2024
JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. Admit. The respective advocates appearing for the respondents waive service of notice of admission. 2. The captioned group of Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common judgement and order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petitions. The writ petitions are filed by the Foresters, who are working under the appellant-Forest and Environment Department. The issue before the learned Single Judge raised by the writ petitioners was that the action of the respondent authorities - appellants in treating them as fresh appointees and also affecting their seniority. 3. Letters Patent Appeal No.129 of 2024 in Special Civil Application No.3813 of 2021 is taken as a lead matter with consent of the learned advocates. BRIEF FACTS 4. The appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.1 of 2024(writ petitioners of Special Civil Application No.7585 of 2020) have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.06.2020 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Junagadh circle, whereby he has issued the provisional seniority list wherein, the Foresters, who have not passed the exam of CCC, were also placed in such seniority. Thus, this writ petition has been filed by those Foresters against the Foresters, who have assailed the action of appellants in appointing them afresh since they did not clear the Course of Computer Concepts (“CCC” for short) examination, within the stipulated period. 5. The writ petitioners i.e the present respondents – Forest Guards, were appointed in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009, on contractual basis for 5 years on fixed pay. Except the respondents, Jitendra Bambhaniya, Bakotra Bhaveshkumar Virabhai, Der Lalitbhai Hakabhai and Mahesh Sureshbhai Parmar, all other obtained CCC Certificates issued by the Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University after their appointments, whereas they already possessed the CCC/DOEACC Certificates before their appointments. There is no dispute with regard to the validity and acceptability of CCC certificates. All of them were placed on regular pay-scale, after completion of 5 years of contractual period. Subsequently, when they were asked to again clear the CCC examination, they also took the examination and again obtained the CCC certificates in the year 2018-2019. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the validity and acceptability of CCC certificates. All of them were placed on regular pay-scale, after completion of 5 years of contractual period. Subsequently, when they were asked to again clear the CCC examination, they also took the examination and again obtained the CCC certificates in the year 2018-2019. 6. It appears that the appellant-authorities passed an order dated 11.06.2020 inter alia stating that the respondents were required to pass the CCC examination within a period of 2 years i.e. up to 04.09.2014 from the recognized Institute however, since they have passed such examination belatedly on 17.02.2019, their appointments are to be considered afresh from 17.02.2019 i.e. date of passing the CCC examination. Accordingly, individual orders were passed on 14.06.2021 by the office of Chief Conservator of Forest, Junagadh. The aforesaid order has been passed in view of the Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and after recording the conditions mentioned in the said Resolution vis a vis Resolution dated 04.06.2009, the respondents have been treated as fresh appointees and it is categorically observed that since they have not cleared the CCC examination within the stipulated period, as envisaged in the aforesaid Resolutions, they will lose their seniority and their seniority is required to be considered afresh from the date of passing such examination. The aforesaid order also refers to the earlier litigation i.e. Letters Patent Appeal Nos.330 of 2021 and 331 of 2021 before this Court. Such action of the Chief Conservator of Forest, Junagadh was questioned in the captioned writ petitions. 7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the respective sides, has allowed the writ petitions except Special Civil Application No.7585 of 2020, which has been filed by the rival Foresters. SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED AGP 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi appearing for the appellants has submitted that the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside since the appellants, after considering the entire scheme of CCC examination as well as the statutory Rules, have passed the impugned orders appointing the respondents afresh. He has submitted that since the respondents have not cleared the examination within the stipulated period, their seniority is required to be forfeited and they are to be considered as new appointees from the date of passing of the CCC examination. He has submitted that since the respondents have not cleared the examination within the stipulated period, their seniority is required to be forfeited and they are to be considered as new appointees from the date of passing of the CCC examination. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 9(A) of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 (“the Rules” for short), the respondents, who were appointed on contractual period, were required to pass the examination of CCC within a period of 2 years or during the contractual period. He has submitted that all of the respondents have passed the CCC examination in the year 2018 and 2019 and hence, they would lose their seniority. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that as per the provisions of the Resolution dated 06.08.2015, the employees, who were appointed on contractual basis, are required to pass the CCC examination for the purpose of promotion. He has further referred to the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and has submitted that as per the provisions of the Resolution, the contractual employees, who have not cleared the CCC examination within their contractual period, have to clear CCC examination within a period of 2 years, after they are placed in a regular payscale. It is submitted that by this Resolution, the conditions, which were incorporated in the Resolution dated 04.06.2009, were altered accordingly. It is further held that the condition No.2 was incorporated, wherein it is specifically stated that if the employees, who do not clear the CCC examination within 2 years after they are placed in regular pay-scale, their services are to be terminated immediately and in case, they clear the same, they shall be reinstated without protection of their seniority. It is submitted that the Resolution dated 04.06.2009, which stipulates of passing the CCC examination as per the Rules, such employees would be governed by the present Resolution and hence, the respondents, who are supposed to pass the examination within stipulated period since have failed to do so, are required to be treated as fresh appointees. Hence, it is urged that the appellant authorities have precisely passed the order treating them as fresh appointees. Hence, it is urged that the appellant authorities have precisely passed the order treating them as fresh appointees. He has also placed reliance on the Circular dated 17.12.2007 and has submitted that even those candidates or respondents, who are holding the CCC Certificates prior to their appointments, are required to pass the CCC examination, after their selection. Thus, it is urged that passing of CCC examination by the respondents before they were appointed would not make any difference since they were required to pass the CCC examination again. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the respondents, who were appointed on contractual basis are not required to pass the examination as such period cannot be considered as probation period. It is submitted that period of 5 years is required to be considered as probation period for those candidates, who are employed or appointed on contractual basis for 5 years, as per the policy of the State Government and they are required to pass the CCC examination during the contractual period or within 2 years and since the respondents have passed the CCC examination beyond such period, their seniority will be directly affected and the same will get washed away and respondents have to be treated as fresh appointees from the date of passing the CCC examination. Thus, it is urged that the Letters Patent Appeals may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS OF LPA NO.1 OF 2024 : 11. Learned advocate Mr.Sharma appearing for the rival Foresters (appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.1 of 2024) has submitted that the appellant authority should have terminated the services of those Foresters, who did not clear the examination within the stipulated period. It is submitted that the writ petitioners of Special Civil Application No.7585 of 2020 have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.06.2020 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Junagadh fixing the provisional seniority. It is submitted that the Forest guards or the Foresters are required to be excluded from the seniority since they have not cleared the CCC examinations within the stipulated time. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS : 12. It is submitted that the Forest guards or the Foresters are required to be excluded from the seniority since they have not cleared the CCC examinations within the stipulated time. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS : 12. Learned senior advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi appearing for the respondents has submitted that the impugned common judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference and the same is precisely passed, after quashing and setting aside the impugned action of the appellants. He has submitted that all the respondents- Foresters have cleared the CCC examination twice. He has submitted that such respondents, who were appointed on contractual basis, and after they were regularized in service, they had again passed the CCC examination in the year 2018 and 2019. 13. Learned senior advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi has submitted that there is no requirement of passing the CCC examination twice and once the Certificates of CCC, which was possessed by the respondents, are found to be valid, they cannot be asked to again appear in the examination of CCC and to obtain afresh Certificate. He has submitted that it is not the case of the appellants that the Certificate possessed by the respondents at the time of appointments or thereafter are invalid. He has submitted that the respondents were never informed that even after possessing CCC Certificates, they have to again obtain such Certificate afresh. It is submitted that when the Department had informed them to obtain fresh Certificates accordingly, all of them have cleared examination and obtained the CCC Certificates on second occasion in the year 2018 and 2019. Thus, it is urged that since the respondents were already possessing the CCC Certificates and again they have obtained it, the appellants cannot wipe out their seniority from the date of their appointments and treat them fresh appointees. Thus, it is urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered. ANALYSIS OF THE PLEADINGS AND CONCLUSION : 14. Thus, it is urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered. ANALYSIS OF THE PLEADINGS AND CONCLUSION : 14. It is the case of the appellants and as per the contents of the order dated 11.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gir Division, Junagadh that since the respondents did not clear the CCC examination within 2 years, after they were regularly appointed i.e. up to 04.09.2014 and instead they passed the same on 17.02.2019, and as per the prevalent Rules and Regulations, they are to be treated as fresh appointees from 17.02.2019. This order is passed against one of the respondents- original petitioners viz. Shri Ranatbhai Nanabhai Mori. Another order, which is similarly worded, is passed on 14.06.2021. Similar order is passed on 14.06.2021 in the case of Forester- Parmar Maheshkumar Sureshbhai by the Member-Secretary of appellant's Committee and Zone Officer, Junagadh, Zone-I of office of Chief Conservator of Forest. 15. Perusal of the said orders reveals that the authority has considered the provisions of the Resolutions dated 23.10.2015 and 04.06.2009 and after invoking the same, promotion of the respondents to the post of “Forester” is cancelled and declared as void ab initio. It is the case of the appellants that as per the provisions of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, by which the Resolution dated 04.06.2009 has been modified and as per new conditions incorporated therein, a contractual employee, who has been placed in the regular pay-scale, has to pass the CCC examination within a period of 2 years and if such employee fails to clear the same, he has to be immediately terminated from services and on passing the CCC examination, he has to be reinstated without protection of seniority. Taking clue from the aforesaid provisions, the appellants have passed the impugned orders wiping out the entire seniority of the respondents and they are considered as fresh appointees from the date of passing of their second CCC examination i.e. in the year 2018 and 2019. 16. On a specific query raised by this Court to the learned Assistant Government Pleader to point out as to whether any such conditions existed prior to 2015, he has responded that despite his best efforts, he could not find any provision of Rules or Regulations, wiping out the seniority of Forest Guards prior to the issuance of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. 17. 17. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009, which has been modified by the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. The Resolution dated 04.06.2009 was issued by the General Administration Department regulating the appointment on contractual basis of Class-III and Class-IV employees on fixed salary. Condition No.12(2) of the Resolution dated 04.06.2009 was deleted by the Resolution dated 23.10.2015. The Condition No.12(2) of the Resolution dated 04.06.2009 speaks of passing the computer skill test along with pre-service training and if the candidate fails to pass such test, he shall not be appointed on regular pay-scale and his service is required to be terminated. The Condition No.12(2) of Resolution dated 04.06.2009 was deleted, and instead, a new condition is incorporated in the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 wherein, it is declared that “a candidate has to pass the CCC examination within a period of 2 years after he is placed in the regular pay-scale and in case the employee does not pass the CCC examination within 2 years, he/she shall be terminated with immediate effect and on passing the same, the employee shall be reinstated however, without protection of seniority.” Thus, by invoking the provision of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, the appellants have passed the orders appointing the respondents anew from the date of passing of their subsequent CCC examination. 18. It is an admitted fact that all the respondents except the respondent of Letters Patent Appeal No.132 of 2024 in Special Civil Application No.12543 of 2020, were appointed prior to issuance of the Resolution dated 23.10.2015. All the respondents possessed the CCC Certificates. The details of the same are incorporated as under: Petition Number Petitioner Name Appointment Date 1st CCC Certificate Regularization 2nd CCC Certificate Current Post LPA No.132 of 2024 in SCA No. 12543 of 2020 Mukeshbhai Tidabhai Dabhi 29.07.2009 30.06.2012 (CAREER IT) (DOEACC Accredited) 04.10.2014 21.03.2018 (Institute of Infrastructure Technology Research and Management) Forest Guard LPA No.128 of 2024 in SCA No. 14974 of 2020 Maheshbhai Bachubhai Solanki 24.08.2007 10.01.2012 (National Computer Training Center) 18.01.2014 17.02.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Damaniya Mulubhai Govindbhai 24.08.2007 02.09.2012 (National Computer Training Center) 18.01.2014 17.02.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester LPA No.130 of 2024 in SCA No. 13620 of 2020 Jitendra Chaganbhai Bambhaniya 24.08.2007 02.06.2007 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University 03.10.2012 08.03.2019 (SPIPA) Forester Dharangad Bharatkumar Dhirajlal 24.08.2007 01.10.2007 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University 03.10.2012 08.03.2019 (SPIPA) Forester Dharangad Bharatkumar Dhirajlal 24.08.2007 01.10.2007 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 03.10.2012 24.03.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Bakotra Bhaveshkumar Virabhai 24.08.2007 14.02.2007 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 18.07.2014 24.03.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Der Lalitbhai 24.08.2007 07.12.2006 (DOEACC) Hakabhai 03.10.2012 17.03.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester LPA No.129 of 2024 in SCA No. 3813 of 2021 Mahesh Sureshbhai Parmar 25.04.2008 08.08.2007 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 07.09.2013 20.01.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Khuman Rajendrabh ai Manglubhai 31.08.2007 11.10.2013 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 10.10.2013 20.01.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Mori Ranatbhai Nanabhai 31.08.2007 17.05.2009 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 01.06.2013 17.02.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Sisodiya Sangitaben Hamirbhai 26.08.2007 17.05.2009 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 03.10.2012 20.01.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Yasmin Mahmadhanif Askani 24.08.2007 31.12.2008 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 03.10.2012 04.05.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Urmilaben Govindbhai Vaza 31.08.2007 17.05.2009 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 29.06.2013 17.03.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Vala Ranjitbhai Bavkubhai 31.08.2007 15.09.2008 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 29.06.2013 20.01.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Rajubhai Kalubhai Pichhadiya 24.08.2007 15.09.2008 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 02.03.2013 17.02.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Dilavar Arjanbhai Dodiya 24.08.2007 15.09.2008 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 02.03.2013 12.05.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester Kodiyatar Naranbhai Sidibhai 24.08.2007 17.05.2009 (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University) 09.07.2013 04.07.2019 (Gujarat University) Forester 19. The respondents, before their regularization (placing in regular pay-scale), were possessing the CCC Certificates. When they were again asked to clear the same, they took the examination and obtained the second CCC Certificates in the year 2018 and 2019. Indubitably, all the respondents are possessing two CCC certificates, as mentioned in the above Chart. 20. The provisions of the Resolution dated 23.10.2015 cannot be made applicable to the respondents retrospectively since all of them are regularized in the year 2014 and they were appointed prior to issuance of the aforesaid Resolution. Provisions of the Resolution dated 04.06.2009 will also not apply in the case of the respondents as they were appointed prior to the aforesaid Resolution, except Mukeshbhai Tidabhai Dabhi (writ petitioner of Special Civil Application No.12543 of 2020). However, after his appointment, he has cleared the CCC examination on 13.06.2004 and also again in the year 2018. 21. In wake of these undisputed facts, the appellants could not have invoked the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and further treat the respondents as fresh appointees from the date of passing of their examination. 22. However, after his appointment, he has cleared the CCC examination on 13.06.2004 and also again in the year 2018. 21. In wake of these undisputed facts, the appellants could not have invoked the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and further treat the respondents as fresh appointees from the date of passing of their examination. 22. When this Court called upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader to explain as to whether the CCC Certificate/ course, which the respondent had cleared subsequently on the second occasion, was specialized course or the same was different than the first CCC Certificate/course, however, nothing is pointed out to us, which would suggests that CCC Certificate which, the respondents were already possessing, was not in any manner different or lower in standard than the CCC Certificate, which they had obtained subsequently in the year 2018 and 2019. In any case, the appellants could not have treated the respondents as fresh appointees on the date of passing the CCC Certificates as they were never informed that their earlier Certificates were invalid or not up to the standards required by the State Government. On the contrary, when the appellants informed the respondents to clear the examination, they have immediately again cleared the same and obtained the CCC Certificates. It is pertinent to note that the clauses of the Resolution dated 04.06.2009 as well as the Resolution dated 23.10.2005 were never invoked and they were never terminated from the services, since the respondents were already possessing the CCC Certificates before they were regularized in services. 23. We have examined the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is very comprehensive in nature. The learned Single Judge has considered all the Resolutions and Circulars governing the CCC examination as well as Rule 9(a) of the Recruitment General Rules, 1967. At this stage, we clarify that Five years’ period, on which the respondents were appointed on contractual basis, is required to be considered as probation period. It appears that the respondents were appointed on fixed pay in view of the Resolution dated 16.02.2006, by which the Finance Department introduced a scheme of appointment of employees of Class-III and Class-IV posts in all cadres. It appears that the respondents were appointed on fixed pay in view of the Resolution dated 16.02.2006, by which the Finance Department introduced a scheme of appointment of employees of Class-III and Class-IV posts in all cadres. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgement dated 06.09.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.392 of 2016 in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Hiteshkumar Bharatbhai Vaghela, after considering the scheme of resolution dated 16.02.2006 and 04.06.2009, has held that the period of five years rendered by an employee on fixed pay has to be considered as probation period. The said observations are as under: 14. As regards the contention raised by the learned AGP that the Resolution dated 04.05.2007 would not apply in the case of the respondent since the appellant cannot be said to be on probation period as envisaged in the said resolution as he was appointed on five years contractual basis does not merit acceptance for the following reasons:- a) It is not denied that the respondent has been appointed on both the posts through the recruitment process prescribed under the resolution dated 04.06.2009. Vide Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006 issued by the Finance Department, the State Government had introduced a Scheme of appointment of the employees of Class-III and Class-IV posts in all cadres. The preamble of the Government Resolution specifies that all the appointments in Class-III and Class-IV in all cadres shall be made for five years on fixed pay on probation. Condition nos.20 and 22 mention the service as on probation. Condition no.22 specifically stipulates that after an employee who completes period of five years on fixed pay, and he is placed in regular pay scale then he shall not be placed on probation. b) The aforesaid resolution was further modified by the Resolution dated 04.06.2009 in which it is provided that the government servants, who are appointed on Class-III and Class-IV posts on contractual basis in their case the provision for probation as envisaged under Rule 10-A of the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967, which prescribes one year probation period would not apply and they shall not be placed on probation further after they undergo five years service. Condition no.5 of the said G.R prescribes that all the departmental examination, pre-service training which are to be undertaken during the probation are to be passed during the contractual period. Condition no.5 of the said G.R prescribes that all the departmental examination, pre-service training which are to be undertaken during the probation are to be passed during the contractual period. c) The Government Resolution dated 04.05.2007 does not imply that only those government servants/officers who are confirmed on a post can get the benefit of reverting to their original post during the probation period of recently selected subsequent post. After the introduction of policy of contractual appointment in the year 2006, every Class-III and Class-IV employee of all the cadres in the State have to undergo five years fixed period, and on completion of the same they are placed in the regular pay scale. Thus, an employee who has been confirmed after successfully completing his probation period and is placed in a regular pay scale will never take the risk of applying for a rigors of five of five years fresh post and undergo in a fixed pay. Thus, the contention of the learned AGP that a confirmed government servant/officer can only get the benefit of G.R. dated 04.05.2007 defies the logic and hence, cannot be accepted. 24. Rule 9(A) of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 was introduced by the amendment dated 04.06.2009 i.e. after the appointments of the respondents, except Mukeshbhai Tidabhai Dhabi(Respondent of LPA No.132 of 2004). As per the provisions of Rule 9(A)(iii), the candidates, who were appointed on contractual basis have to pass the CCC examination for computer knowledge during the contractual period or within a period of 2 years thereafter. Thus, when the respondents have entered in their services, they were either possessing the CCC Certificate or they have cleared the same during their contractual period. They have also subsequently again cleared the CCC examination in the year 2018 and 2019. 25. It is also not disputed that the State Government extended the date of passing the CCC examinations by various Circulars, and during this extended period, the appellants have passed the exam. They have also subsequently again cleared the CCC examination in the year 2018 and 2019. 25. It is also not disputed that the State Government extended the date of passing the CCC examinations by various Circulars, and during this extended period, the appellants have passed the exam. The appellants have heavily placed reliance on the Government Circular dated 17.12.2007 issued by the General Administration Departments specifying that a direct recruited candidate is required to have basic computer knowledge as pre-requisite at the time of his appointment, and after the selection/appointment as a part of Government Departmental Training and/ or during probation period, it is mandatory to pass the examination conducted by the Government Examination Center of CCC for Class-III and Class- IV and CCC+ for Class-I and Class-III as decided by the Government. However, this Circular does not stipulate negative consequences of losing the seniority or effecting termination. Assuming the said clause will apply, then also in the case the respondents, when the appellant authority asked them to clear the CCC examination again, the respondents appeared and ultimately, again secured the CCC Certificates. 26. The case of the appellants entirely hinges on the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. The same will not apply to the respondents. The appellants have treated the respondents as fresh appointees from 2018-19 by wiping out their entire service from the year 2007, which includes the probation/contractual period. It is also an undisputed fact that the respondents were never terminated from the services on the ground that they had not passed the CCC examination within the prescribed period. The appellants have admitted the validity of the CCC certificates possessed by the respondents at the time of their appointments. The respondents were also regularized and placed in regular pay scale after completion of 5 years contractual period. Thus, the conditions of the Resolution dated 23.10.2015 cannot be invoked, after the respondents were regularized in service. In wake of these undisputed facts, the impugned action of treating the respondents as fresh appointees could have been only taken during their probation/contractual period, and not thereafter. There is no provision of law shown to us, which enables the appellants to take such action against those employees, after they have been regularized in service. In wake of these undisputed facts, the impugned action of treating the respondents as fresh appointees could have been only taken during their probation/contractual period, and not thereafter. There is no provision of law shown to us, which enables the appellants to take such action against those employees, after they have been regularized in service. The only period/time frame available to the appellants to act or invoke the Government instructions/ Resolutions, was during the probation or contractual period, and if the State authorities have failed to do so, they cannot tinker with the seniority and treat the regular employees as fresh appointees. Such an action will amount to putting the cart before the horse, as the regular employees are being treated as fresh appointees with retrospective effect from the date of passing the CCC exams by curtailing the probation period. Thus, the appellants have absolutely acted without application of mind and without realizing the consequences of their orders. 27. Hence, the action of the appellants, which was impugned in the writ petitions, is declared as illegal and arbitrary. We are not inclined to interfere with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, all the Letters Patent Appeals fail including Letters Patent Appeal No.1 of 2024 filed by the rival foresters. The same are dismissed accordingly. 28. The connected Civil Applications are also dismissed accordingly. 29. Registry to place a copy of this order in each of the connected matters.