TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules on seniority dispute for Asstt. Conservators of Forest</h1> <h3>Keshav Chandra Joshi and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court addressed the issue of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits as Asstt. Conservators of Forest. The Court declared ... - Issues Involved:1. Inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits.2. Legality of Rule 3(h) and Rule 24 of the U.P. Forest Services Rules, 1952.3. Applicability of Rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966.4. Validity of Regulation 5 of Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion), Regulation 1966.Summary:1. Inter se Seniority between Promotees and Direct Recruits:The Supreme Court addressed the 'vexed question of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits' as Asstt. Conservators of Forest. The promotees, confirmed Forest Range Officers in U.P. Forest Subordinate Service, were appointed on an ad-hoc basis due to the non-availability of direct recruits. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to declare Rule 3(h) and Rule 24 of the U.P. Forest Services Rules, 1952, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They argued that their continuous length of service from the dates of their initial promotion should be counted towards their seniority.2. Legality of Rule 3(h) and Rule 24 of the U.P. Forest Services Rules, 1952:The Court interpreted Rule 3(h) and Rule 24, stating that a member of the service must be appointed in a substantive capacity under the provisions of the rules. The appointment must be to a post in the service according to rules and within the quota to a substantive vacancy. The Court emphasized that 'any other construction would be a violation of the rules.'3. Applicability of Rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966:The Court noted that the rules are legislative in character and must be harmoniously interpreted. Rule 4 constitutes and fixes the cadre strength of various posts, including Asstt. Conservator of Forest. The Court highlighted that the Government did not abandon direct recruitment under Rule 5(a) and the delay in recruitment was due to judicial proceedings.4. Validity of Regulation 5 of Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion), Regulation 1966:The Court examined the procedure for recruitment by promotion under Rule 5(b) and Appendix 'B'. It was found that the promotees were appointed on an ad-hoc basis, pending direct recruitment, and in excess of the prescribed quota under Rule 6. The Court held that 'appointments are dehors the rules and until they are appointed by the Governor according to rules, they do not become the members of the service in a substantive capacity.'Conclusion:The Court concluded that the promotees' continuous length of ad-hoc service from the date of initial appointment cannot be counted towards seniority. The seniority of the promotees shall be counted only from the respective dates of appointment to substantive posts in their quota under Rule 6. The direct recruits' seniority shall be counted from the date of discharging duties as Asstt. Conservator of Forest. The writ petitions were allowed, and the inter se seniority of the direct recruits and promotees shall be determined in accordance with the relevant rules and the law declared in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
