Summary
Directly recruited Assistant Conservators of Forests in Maharashtra, sent for training in 2014 and appointed in 2016, claimed seniority from the start of training, relying on a Tribunal order granting pay from that date and a 2018 Government Resolution; promotees appointed in 2014 objected, and the Bombay High Court held that direct recruits' seniority for promotion to Divisional Forest Officer runs only from appointment after training. The Supreme Court dismissed the direct recruits' appeal: the proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules, framed under Article 309, excludes training and probation from the requisite service, the 1998 Rules are in consonance, and executive resolutions cannot override statutory rules, though they justify salary for the training period.
Issues
- Whether directly recruited Assistant Conservators of Forests are entitled to count the period of pre-appointment training towards seniority vis-a-vis promotees for promotion to Divisional Forest Officer, when the statutory rules exclude training and probation from the requisite period of service and Government Resolutions suggest otherwise.
Provisions considered
- Proviso to Rule 2, Divisional Forest Officer (in Maharashtra Forest Service, Class I) (Recruitment) Rules, 1984Statutory rules under Article 309 providing that for directly appointed Assistant Conservators the period spent on training at Government Forest Colleges and the period of probation shall not be counted towards the requisite period of service; the proviso is unambiguous and must be given effect for determining seniority and eligibility for promotion. (¶¶ 9, 10, 25, 29, 31)
- Rules 3(b) and 6, Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Maharashtra Forest Service, Group A (Junior Scale) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998Nomination is from candidates who have successfully completed the training course, and the three-year probation includes the training; read together they show that appointment follows completion of training and that the probation period is excluded from service, consistently with the 1984 proviso. (¶¶ 9, 26, 27, 30)
- Articles 162 and 309, Constitution of IndiaGovernment Resolutions of 1997 and 2018 issued under executive power cannot have the status of statutory rules or override rules framed under Article 309; they operate only to secure monetary compensation for the training period. (¶¶ 15, 19, 25, 27, 28, 31)
Held
- Service rules prevail over Government resolutions, which may be in consonance with but not in conflict with them; appointment is distinct from the recruitment process that begins with training, since a candidate may fail training or have probation extended, so the proviso excluding training and probation from requisite service operates with full force and the appellants' reading of Rule 6 would render it otiose. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32)
- The resolutions ensure that a recruit who completes training is paid for that period, but cannot confer seniority from the start of recruitment against promotees who were already discharging the duties; Prafulla Kumar Swain is not distinguishable merely because its regulation used the word 'only', and R.S. Ajara turns on its own rules, since in service matters it is what the rule says that matters. (¶¶ 28, 29)
Result
Appeal dismissed; Bombay High Court judgment dated 23.04.2021 holding that seniority of Assistant Conservators of Forests appointed by nomination counts from the appointment order after completion of training, as against promotees, affirmed; parties to bear their own costs.