Statutory seniority rules govern Forest Service rank; executive instructions cannot override the Bihar Forest Service Rules.

Seniority in the Bihar Forest Service had to be fixed under Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953, not by inconsistent executive instructions. The rule made seniority depend on the date of substantive appointment, and its proviso gave promoted officers priority over direct recruits only where both were appointed at the same time; where rangers were promoted at the same time, their inter se seniority followed their earlier seniority as rangers. On the facts, the appellant and other promoted officers were appointed at different times, so their rank was governed by seniority as rangers, under which the appellant was junior. A direct recruit appointed at a different time was not affected by the proviso.

---

---

Issues: Whether seniority in the Bihar Forest Service was to be determined by executive instructions or by Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953, and whether promoted Assistant Conservators of Forest were entitled to seniority above direct recruits or above other promoted rangers.

Analysis: Rule 35 prescribed that seniority of officers appointed to the service was to be determined with reference to the date of substantive appointment. Its proviso further provided that where appointments by direct recruitment and promotion were made at the same time, promoted members would rank senior to direct recruits, and that where rangers were substantively appointed by promotion at the same time, their inter se seniority would be governed by their seniority as rangers. On the facts found, the appellant and respondents 7 to 12 were promoted at different times and their inter se rank had to be traced to their seniority as rangers, under which the appellant was junior. Respondent 13, being a direct recruit appointed at a different time, did not attract the proviso giving promoted officers priority over direct recruits. Any Cabinet memorandum or executive instruction inconsistent with the statutory rules could not alter the rule-based seniority position.

Conclusion: The appellant had no enforceable claim to placement above the other officers in the seniority list, and the statutory seniority scheme prevailed over the executive memorandum.

Ratio Decidendi: Seniority of government servants governed by statutory rules must be determined strictly in accordance with those rules, and executive instructions cannot override or modify a binding statutory seniority provision.

---