Appeal dismissed: Statutory rules over executive instructions. Seniority list challenge fails.

The appeal challenging the seniority list of Assistant Conservators of Forest in Bihar Forest Service was dismissed. The Court held that statutory rules govern seniority, and executive instructions cannot alter them. Despite the appellant's claim based on a memorandum indicating his seniority, the Court emphasized that statutory provisions prevail over executive instructions. The judgment highlighted that in conflicts between executive instructions and statutory rules, the latter prevails. Consequently, the appeal failed, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to seniority list of Assistant Conservators of Forest in Bihar Forest Service based on appointment dates and confirmation dates.

Analysis:
The appellant and respondents 7 to 13 are Assistant Conservators of Forest in Bihar Forest Service governed by Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953. The appellant and respondents 7 to 12 were appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forest by promotion, while respondent No. 13 was appointed by direct recruitment. The seniority list challenged by the appellant placed respondent No. 13 above the appellant and respondents 7 to 12. The appellant's appointment was made retrospective, and the confirmation dates varied among the officers. The seniority of officers appointed to the service is determined by the date of their substantive appointment as per Rule 35 of the Rules. The proviso states that in case of appointments by promotion and direct recruitment, promoted members are senior to direct recruits. The seniority inter-se of rangers on substantive appointment by promotion is determined by their seniority as rangers.

The appellant argued that a memorandum to the Cabinet indicated his seniority above certain officers, but the Cabinet's approval was disputed. However, the Court found that the statutory rules govern seniority, and executive instructions cannot alter them. The appellant's claim for seniority was based on the memorandum, but the Court held that statutory provisions prevail over executive instructions. The Court concluded that the appellant's claim had no substance, and the appeal challenging the seniority list was dismissed. The judgment emphasized that in case of a conflict between executive instructions and statutory rules, the latter prevails. The Court ruled that the appeal failed, with no order as to costs.

---