Summary
Forest officers appointed in 1988 beyond the advertised vacancies and from an exhausted selection list could claim seniority only from their regularisation in 2005. The Supreme Court held that their original appointments were illegal and contrary to the statutory recruitment rules, notwithstanding a later Commission recommendation and lengthy service. Under Rule 35, seniority followed substantive appointment, so continuous officiation under the original unlawful appointments did not justify retrospective seniority.
Issues
- Whether seniority could run from initial appointments made beyond the advertised vacancies and exhausted merit list.
- Whether later regularisation and continuous service entitled the officers to earlier seniority.
Provisions considered
- Rule 35, Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953Seniority follows substantive appointment, which requires an appointment conforming to the governing rules rather than a fortuitous or unlawful entry. (¶¶ 8.1–8.2, 8.14)
- Rule 24, Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953The rule against extraneous support for an application reinforced the invalidity of securing appointment through representations after exhaustion of the recruitment list. (¶ 8.3–8.4)
Held
- The advertised recruitment had concluded and its merit list stood exhausted. With no statutory provision maintaining a waiting list, further appointments from that selection beyond the notified vacancies were contrary to the rules; the later requisition and Commission recommendation did not cure that defect. (¶ 8.3–8.9)
- Substantive appointment must comply with the extant recruitment framework. An illegal or fortuitous appointment does not confer seniority over regular substantive appointees merely because the incumbent continued in service. (¶¶ 8.1–8.2, 8.14)
- Regularisation was approved with effect from 3 October 2005 after the officers had served for about seventeen years. Rule 35 permitted seniority from that regular entry date, not the initial unlawful appointments in April 1988. (¶ 8.11–8.14)
Result
Civil appeals dismissed without costs. High Court judgment affirming seniority from 3 October 2005 upheld; pending applications disposed of.