REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4020­4022  OF 2019 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11320­22 of

2015]

Nand Kumar Manjhi & Anr. etc.         …Appellants

Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors. etc.                    …Respondents

JUDGMENT    

INDU MALHOTRA, J.    

Leave granted.

1. The present Civil Appeals arise out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)

Nos. 11320­11322 of  2015 wherein the impugned Judgment and

1

Order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Patna High Court in Letters

Patent Appeal Nos. 491 of 2013, 257 of 2013 and 509 of 2013 has

been challenged.

2. The factual matrix in the present Civil Appeals is as under:

2.1. The  Respondent No. 1 – State of Bihar published an

advertisement on 24.07.1985 inviting applications for  filling

up 40 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests (“ACF”)

through  direct recruitment  under the  Bihar  Forest  Service

Rules, 1953.

On the basis of the examination conducted in December

1985  and  viva voce, the  Bihar Public Service  Commission

(“the Commission”) prepared a list of successful candidates.

On the recommendations of the Commission, the posts of

ACFs advertised were filled up by the State  vide  Notification

dated 14.12.1987. On filling up of the advertised posts, the

Merit List got exhausted.

The Appellants, in the present case, had participated in

the selection, but were unsuccessful in getting appointed.

2

2.2. The Appellants and some other candidates who were

unsuccessful in obtaining appointment as ACFs in the 1985

selection, made representations before the Chief Minister on

12.06.1987, the Minister of Forests and Environment on

21.08.1987,  and  the  Secretary,  Department  of  Forests  and

Environment on 06.11.1987 for appointment against vacant

posts beyond the 40 advertised posts.

2.3. On 21.10.1987, the  State took a decision to fill the existing

vacant posts of ACFs from the list of successful candidates

who had qualified in the Competitive Examination conducted

in 1985 and 1986 respectively, but did not get appointed.

2.4. On 15.02.1988, the State Government sought the names of

13 successful  candidates  from the Commission,  as per  the

Merit List prepared pursuant to the selection against the 1985

advertisement.

The Commission  vide  letter dated 20.02.1988

recommended  the  names of  12 candidates,  which  included

the names of the Appellants, for appointment as ACFs.

3

The State issued a Notification dated 13.04.1988

appointing 11 candidates, including the Appellants, from the

list forwarded by the Commission as ACFs.

2.5. On 10.08.1989, 8  more candidates  were appointed to the

posts of ACF which fell vacant on account of non­joining of

candidates appointed vide Notifications dated 14.12.1987 and

13.04.1988. The names of these 8 candidates were also

shown against the 1985 Advertisement.

2.6. On 12.06.1987, the State Government sent a requisition to

initiate the process for appointment of 40 more ACFs through

direct recruitment.

Pursuant to the requisition made by the State on

12.06.1987, a fresh Advertisement for 40 posts of ACFs

through direct recruitment was published by the Commission

on 20.12.1987. The Commission conducted written

examination in September 1988.

The State appointed 35 direct recruits as ACFs on

30.03.1990 against the vacancies notified in the 1987

advertisement.

4

2.7. The State promoted 30 Range Officers, including Respondent

Nos. 21­321, as ACFs w.e.f. 30.03.1990  vide  Notifications

dated 16/17.08.1990, 18.07.1991 and 02.09.1992,

respectively.

2.8. During the period from 20.06.1987 to 17.10.1987, the State

further promoted 52 Forest Rangers to the post of ACF.

2.9. The Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953 were amended to insert

Rule  3(aa) on  26.12.1989  with retrospective effect.  As per

Rule 3(aa),  Range Officers  of  Forests  who have  passed  the

Ranger Course after securing Honours shall be deemed to be

eligible to be appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forests,

and shall be treated as direct recruits.

Rule 3(aa) is reproduced hereinbelow:

“3. The appointments of the service shall ordinarily be made by ­…

…(aa) The Range Officer of  Forest,  who passes  the Ranger Course securing Honours shall be eligible for admission to the 2nd year/2 (two) years of State Forest Service  Course in Forestry conducted  by  Government of India.  They  shall be treated as direct recruit to the Bihar Forest Service Cadre (as Assistant Conservator of Forests) and the provisions as laid down  in the  Rule  29,  shall  be  applicable to these  selected Range Officers of Forests…”

1 Names of Respondent Nos. 21­22, 24 and 28 have been deleted from the array of parties vide Order dated November 6, 2017 passed by the learned Chamber Judge.

5

The State  Government  vide  various  Notifications  dated

09.03.1990, appointed 10 Range Officers who had obtained

Honours in the Rangers Course, including Respondent Nos. 8

and 9 as ACFs.

2.10. The State published a final Seniority List on 24.07.1989,

wherein the  ACFs  who  were  promoted  on  06.10.1987  and

23.11.1987, were placed above the Direct Recruits appointed

on 14.12.1987.

Insofar as the Appellants in these Appeals are concerned,

they were accorded seniority w.e.f. the date of their

appointment i.e. 13.04.1988.

2.11. The Seniority List came to be challenged by the Direct

Recruits appointed on 14.12.1987 by way of CWJC No. 8305

of 1989 before the Patna High Court.

CWJC Nos. 8305 of 1989 culminated in the Judgment

dated 31.05.2004 passed  in  Sanjay K.  Sinha –  II  & Ors.  v.

State  of  Bihar  &  Ors.2  by this  Court. It  was  held that the

appointments  of the  1987  Promotees  were fortuitous  since

they  were  made  against  non­existent  posts, and  could  not

2 [(2004) 10 SCC 734] 6

confer any  benefit of seniority from the purported  date of

promotion. The final Seniority List dated 24.07.1989  was

quashed, and the State was directed to prepare a fresh

Seniority List. This Court granted liberty to the State to

regularise the appointment of the 1987 Promotees, whilst

holding  that  seniority  could not  be given to them over the

Direct Recruits appointed on 14.12.1987. This Court noted

that there were only 133 posts in the Bihar Forest Service,

and not 277 as contended by the 1987 Promotees.

2.12. Upon creation of the State of Jharkhand, several officers from

the Bihar Forest Service were transferred to the Jharkhand

cadre, including some of those who were appointed along with

the Appellants on 13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989.

2.13. After  bifurcation  of the  State  of  Bihar  and  creation  of the

State of Jharkhand, the validity of the appointments of the

Appellants and other ACFs appointed by the State on

13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989 was discussed at different levels

during President’s Rule in Bihar, as is apparent from the File

Notings placed on record.

7

The Law Department was of the opinion that these

appointments were irregular since they were appointed

purportedly against the advertisement of 1985, even though

the Select List had got exhausted. It was however observed

that cancellation of their appointment would result in

litigation, since the appointments were made on the basis of

the recommendations of the Commission.  Furthermore, the

appointees  had  by  now  served for about  17 years. It  was

suggested that such appointments may be regularised since

they were irregular, but not illegal.

The  issue  of their  inter  se  seniority  vis­à­vis  the  1987

Promotees was also considered,  and a decision was sought

from the State Government. The proposal for regularisation of

the appointments of these ACFs was submitted for approval

before the Governor on 03.10.2005.

2.14. A  perusal of letter dated 15.07.2006 addressed by the

Additional Secretary to the Government to the Secretary,

Bihar  Legislative  Assembly indicates that the  proposal  was

approved, and the “…State Government after Enquiry

regularised these appointments and closed this episode.”.

8

The Appellants came to be regularised by the State

Government w.e.f. 03.10.2005.

2.15. On 09.03.2010, shadow posts were created by the State since

the “…working force [was] in excess than created force…since

1987…”.

The State confirmed the services of the Appellants w.e.f.

03.10.2005, by issuance of Notification dated 04.10.2010.

2.16. On 31.03.2010,  a  Provisional  Seniority  List  was published,

wherein the Appellants were placed below the Direct Recruits

and Promotees who were appointed w.e.f. 30.03.1990,

Respondent No. 10 – Hemkant Rai, the 1992 Promotees and

the 1995 Promotees.

2.17. Objections were raised by the Appellants regarding their

placement in the Seniority List. A High­Level Scrutiny

Committee  was  constituted  by the  State to look into their

grievances.

The High­Level Scrutiny Committee rejected the

objections raised by the Appellants.

9

It was noted that they were regularised only w.e.f.

03.10.2005, and hence were not entitled to being placed

above the persons appointed in 1987, 1990, 1992 and 1995.

2.18. The Final  Seniority  List  was published on 02.07.2010.  The

Appellants were placed at the bottom of the Seniority List at

Serial Nos. 321 to 338 i.e. below the 1987 Promotees, Direct

Recruits  as well  as  Promotees appointed w.e.f.  30.03.1990,

Respondent No. 10 – Hemkant Rai, the 1992 and 1995

Promotees.

2.19. Several Writ Petitions were filed before the Patna High Court

by various officers appointed in the Bihar Forest Service cadre

to challenge their  inter se  seniority in the cadre as per the

Final Seniority List dated 02.07.2010.

2.20. The  Appellants before this Court filed CWJC Nos.10925,

11160 and 11337 of 2010 to challenge their placement below

the 1987 Promotees  (Serial Nos. 167 and 209), Respondent

No. 10 – Hemkant Rai (Serial No. 211) and T.N. Jha (Serial

No. 212), 1987 Direct Recruits (Serial Nos. 215 to 249) and

Promotees (Serial Nos. 250 to 289), some of whom are

Respondents in the present proceedings.

10

2.21. The Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by the

common Judgment and Order  dated 06.11.2012 passed by

the learned Single Judge.

The Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants herein (CWJC

Nos.10925, 11160 and 11337 of 2010) were dismissed.

The learned Single Judge held that:

i) The Appellants were rightly placed at the bottom of the

Seniority List since their initial appointments on

13.04.1988, were purportedly from the list of candidates

prepared for the 1985 advertisement. Since the

appointment of the Appellants was beyond the 40

advertised vacancies, it was completely illegal.

II) The  Appellants  persuaded the  State to appoint them,

which was a rank illegality, which cannot be termed just

as a mere irregularity, or minor deviation from the

Rules.

iii) On a humanitarian basis, the Appellants were deemed

to be regularised w.e.f. 03.10.2005 i.e.  the date of their

confirmation in service. This date has to be taken as the

11

legitimate date  of  entry  into  the cadre;  upto  this  date

their entry into the cadre was a rank illegality.

2.22. The Appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 257, 491

and 509 of 2013 before a Division Bench against the common

Judgment dated 06.11.2012 passed by the learned Single

Judge of the Patna High Court.

2.23. The  Letters Patent Appeals  were dismissed by a common

Judgment dated 10.11.2014, wherein it was held that:

I) The Appellants cannot claim seniority on the principle of

continuous officiation from the date of their appointment

i.e. 13.04.1988. The seniority accorded to them from the

date of their regularisation in the cadre i.e.  03.10.2005,

does not call for any interference in exercise of the

powers of judicial review.

II) The appointment of the Appellants was  illegal,  and  in

contravention of all canons of service jurisprudence. It

was based on the generosity of the State.

12

iii)The recruitment process commenced pursuant to the

1985 Advertisement for 40 posts of ACFs, was completed

on the appointments made on 14.12.1987.

iv) The recruitment process having been completed, there

was no occasion for the State to  make any further

appointments pursuant to the 1985 Advertisement.

v) The Appellants were persons who had not been selected

or recommended by the Commission, nor were they wait­

listed candidates.

vi) The appointment of the Appellants ought to be

considered non est.  

vii) The State Government  vide  Notification dated

04.10.2010 regularised their services w.e.f. 03.10.2005.

3.  The Appellants filed the present Special Leave Petitions to challenge

the common Impugned Judgment dated 10.11.2014 passed by the

learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court.

4.  Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel, appeared on behalf of

the Appellants, and prayed for setting aside the impugned

Judgment dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Division Bench.

13

Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of

the State, and the official respondents from the  Department of

Environment & Forests, and Personnel and Administrative Reforms

Department, Government of Bihar.

Mr.  Dinesh  Dwivedi, learned  Senior  Advocate, appeared  on

behalf of some of the Direct Recruits from the 1990 batch

(Respondent Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19).

5. We have perused the record with the able assistance of the Counsel

for the parties.

The issue which arises for our consideration in the present

Civil Appeals is whether the Appellants have rightly been placed at

the  bottom of the  Seniority  List  dated  02.07.2010,  by  according

them seniority from the date of their regularisation in the service on

03.10.2005, and not from the date of their initial appointment  i.e.

13.04.1988.

6. SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS     

6.1. The counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Appellants

ought to have been accorded seniority w.e.f. the date of their

initial appointment  i.e.  13.04.1988.  Otherwise, they  would

14

lose 17 years of service by being placed at the bottom of the

final Seniority List dated 02.07.2010.

6.2. It was further submitted that the Appellants were appointed

as ACFs on the basis of the recommendation of the

Commission  vide  letter dated 20.02.1988. The

recommendation was sent after receiving a requisition from

the State Government vide letter dated 15.02.1988.

6.3. All the private Respondents were appointed after the

Appellants in 1989, and thereafter.

6.4. The final Seniority List published by the State on 24.07.1989

was never challenged by the Respondents insofar as it related

to the seniority of the Appellants.

6.5. The action of the State in according seniority to the

Respondents from the dates of their appointment, while

denying the same to the Appellants was wholly arbitrary and

unjustified.  

6.6. Both the Appellants and the private Respondents were

appointed beyond the cadre strength, and their appointments

15

were regularised after the creation of shadow posts  vide

Notification dated 09.03.2010.

7. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS     

7.1. The Counsel for the Respondents defended the common

impugned Judgment dated 10.11.2014, and stated that the

Appellants have correctly been accorded seniority only from

the date of their regularisation w.e.f. 03.10.2005.

i) It was submitted that the appointment of the Appellants

was de hors  the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953 since

they were made beyond the 40 vacancies notified by the

1985 Advertisement. The Select List prepared pursuant

to the  1985  Advertisement, stood  exhausted  with the

appointment of the 39 candidates on 14.12.1987. The

appointments of the Appellants were not in accordance

with the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953.

ii) Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953

mandates that seniority is to be reckoned form the date

of substantive appointment.

16

The Appellants were not appointed against

substantive  posts  of  ACFs  on the  date  of their initial

appointment on 13.04.1988.

iii)The mere continuance in service over a  long period of

time, would not entitle the Appellants to claim seniority

from the date of their initial appointment; at best, their

claim could be considered only after they were

regularised w.e.f. 03.10.2005.

iv) It  was further submitted that the final Seniority List

published on  24.07.1987  wherein the  Appellants had

been accorded seniority w.e.f. the date of their

appointment i.e. 13.04.1988 was quashed by this Court

vide Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2004 in Sanjay K.

Sinha – II & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.3.

7.2. The Counsel for the State and the Official Respondents

supported the common impugned Judgment and Order dated

10.11.2014, and submitted that the Appellants would be

entitled to seniority only from the date of their regularisation

i.e. 03.10.2005.

3 [(2004) 10 SCC 734]

17

I) It was submitted that the Appellants were appointed on

13.04.1988 on the recommendation of the Commission

sent on a requisition made by the State, after the Select

List against the 1985 advertisement had got exhausted.

ii) By the Notification dated 09.03.2010, shadow posts were

created for appointments, which were found to have

been made against non­existent vacancies.

iii)The appointments of the Appellants came to be

regularised on 03.10.2005, after a proposal to that effect

was approved by the Governor.

iv) It was submitted that the  inter se  seniority of the

Appellants  was fixed in the final  Seniority List dated

02.07.2010 after obtaining the opinion of the High­Level

Scrutiny Committee headed by the Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests, Bihar.

8. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS    

8.1. As per Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953, the

seniority of officers appointed to the Bihar Forest Service has

18

to be determined with reference to the date of their

substantive appointment.

Rule 35 is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:

“35. Seniority of officers appointed to the  Service shall be determined  with reference to the  date of their substantive appointment to the Service.

(i) in the case of members of the Service appointed by direct recruitment at the same time, their seniority inter se shall be in the order of merit in which their names are placed in the list of successful candidates at the Final Examination of the Indian Forest College, Dehra Dun;

(ii) in case where appointments are made to the Service both by direct recruitment and promotion of selected Rangers at the same time, the promoted  members of the  Service shall be senior to the members directly recruited; and

(iii) the seniority inter se of Rangers on substantive appointment to the  Service  by  promotion  at the  same  time shall be their seniority inter se held as Rangers.”

(emphasis supplied)

Rule 35 came up for consideration before this Court in a

previous round of litigation pertaining to  inter se  seniority of

the 1987 Promotees in  Sanjay K. Sinha­II & Ors.  v.  State of

Bihar & Ors.4. This Court held that:

“12.  In this connection we have to note that  Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules provides that seniority of officers appointed to the service is to be determined with reference to the date of their substantive appointment. In order to become a member of the service the person concerned has to satisfy at

4 [(2004) 10 SCC 734]. 19

least two conditions —  first, appointment must be in substantive capacity, and second, the appointment has to be to the post in the service according to the Rules and within the quota to a substantive vacancy  (per Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India [1992 Supp (1) SCC 272 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 694 : (1993) 24 ATC 545] ).

13. In the present case neither of the two conditions is satisfied.  The posts to which substantive appointments were to be made were not available, therefore, there could be no appointment to the service. When there is no appointment to the service, much less substantive appointment to the service, the promotees could not be given seniority with effect from the purported date of their promotion…

17. It is settled law that  appointments made contrary to the rules are merely fortuitous and do not confer benefit of seniority on the appointees over and above the regular/substantive appointees to the service.  (See C.K. Antony v. B. Muraleedharan [(1998) 6 SCC 630 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1624] , M.S.L. Patil, Asstt. Conservator of Forests v. State  of  Maharashtra [(1996)  11  SCC 361  :  1997 SCC (L&S) 241] and State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Thakre [1995 Supp (2) SCC 407 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 867 : (1995) 30 ATC 132] ).”

(emphasis supplied)

8.2. An appointment in substantive capacity is one which is not

fortuitous  or  ad hoc, and is  made in  compliance  with the

extant rules and regulations.5

8.3. The Appellants had admittedly secured appointment as ACFs

through the back­door by making various representations to

the Chief Minister on 12.06.1987, the Minister of Forests and

5 Baleshwar Dass & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1980) 4 SCC 226 (paragraphs 31 and 32); O.P. Singla & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (1984) 4 SCC 450 (paragraph 81).  

20

Environment on 21.08.1987, and the Secretary, Department

of Forests and Environment on 06.11.1987.

Pursuant to these representations,  the State appointed

the Appellants on 13.04.1988 purportedly with reference to

the 1985 advertisement. This was completely illegal and

fortuitous, since the posts advertised in 1985 had been filled

up from the merit list.

8.4. Reference may also be made to Rule 24 which provides as

under:

“24. No recommendations except those invited in form of the application will  be taken into consideration. Any attempt on the part of a candidate to obtain support for his application by other means will disqualify him for appointment.”

The recruitment initiated by the 1985 Advertisement

culminated with the appointment of ACFs by the State  vide

Notification dated 14.12.1987 against the posts advertised.

With their appointment, the Merit List prepared in

pursuance of the 1985 Advertisement stood exhausted, and

no further appointments could have been made from it.6  

6  See  Rakhi Ray  &  Ors.  v.  High Court of Delhi & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 637 (paragraphs 7 to 13).

21

8.5. Rule 22 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953 provides for

the preparation of the Merit List on the basis of the aggregate

marks secured by a candidate in the written examination as

well as  viva voce  test. It provides that the Commission shall

nominate such number of candidates from the merit list as

may have been fixed by the Governor.  

There  is no provision for maintaining a Wait List under

the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953.  

Hence, the appointment of the  Appellants  was  wholly

illegal and contrary to the statutory rules.

8.6. In the background facts set out hereinabove, it is abundantly

clear that the appointments of the Appellants  were  made

beyond the vacancies advertised in 1985, which was in

contravention of the well­settled principle of law enunciated in

Rakhi Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors.7. The relevant

extract from the decision of this Court in Rakhi Ray & Ors. v.

High Court of Delhi & Ors. is reproduced hereinbelow for ready

reference:

7 (2010) 2 SCC 637 (paragraph 7). 22

“7. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as “the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies  is a denial  and deprivation of the constitutional right under  Article  14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution”,  of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to “improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated from and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rationale”, otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in law. (Vide Union of India v. Ishwar  Singh  Khatri [1992  Supp (3) SCC 84 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 999 : (1992) 21 ATC 851], Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat [1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1159 : (1994) 28 ATC 78] , State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees Union 1986 [(1994) 1 SCC 126 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1994) 26  ATC  500 : AIR 1994  SC 736], Prem  Singh v. Haryana SEB [(1996) 4 SCC 319 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 934] and Ashok Kumar v. Banking  Service  Recruitment  Board [(1996)  1  SCC 283 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 298 : (1996) 32 ATC 235 : AIR 1996 SC 976] ).”

(emphasis supplied)

8.7. As a result of the persistent lobbying by the Appellants, they

were able to secure appointment as ACFs on 13.04.1988

purportedly against the 1985 Advertisement. The

appointment of the Appellants was wholly illegal, and in

contravention of the Bihar Forest  Service Rules,  1953.  The

posts advertised in 1985 were duly filled up by the selected

23

candidates. The list of the 1985 advertisement stood fully

exhausted.

8.8. A fresh selection of ACFs through direct recruitment  was

initiated pursuant to an advertisement in 1987.

8.9. While the recruitment process pursuant to the 1987

advertisement was underway, the State requested the

Commission to  forward 13 names from the  list  against the

1985 advertisement, which stood exhausted. The Commission

forwarded the names of the Appellants, and some others

purportedly from the list prepared pursuant to the 1985

advertisement  vide  letter dated 20.02.1988. This whole

process was completely illegal,  as the list  of  1985 had got

exhausted.

8.10. In 1987, 52 Forest Rangers were promoted as ACFs.

Further appointments were made through direct

recruitment and promotion in 1990, 1992, and 1995.

8.11. A proposal to regularise  the services of the Appellants was

initiated, taking a humanitarian view of the matter, since by

then the Appellants had already served for almost 17 years. In

24

the proposal, it was mentioned that the appointment of the

Appellants as  ACFs in  1988  was “irregular”.  However, the

cancellation of the appointments at this juncture would result

in further litigation, since it was made on the basis of a letter

from the  Commission. The proposal  was approved by the

Governor on 03.10.2005.

The  State  granted  confirmation to the  Appellants  vide

Notification  dated  04.10.2010  w.e.f. from  the  date  of their

regularisation i.e. 03.10.2005.

8.12. The State published the Final Seniority List on 02.07.2010.

The Appellants were placed at the bottom of the Seniority List

at Serial Nos. 321 to 338 i.e.  below the 1987 Promotees, the

Direct Recruits as well as Promotees of 1990, Respondent No.

10 –  Hemkant  Rai, the  1992 Promotees,  and Promotees of

1995 on the basis of the date of regular appointment as ACF.

8.13. The Appellants raised objections to their position on the

Seniority  List,  and claimed seniority from the date  of their

initial appointment on 13.04.1988 and continuous officiation

till their regularisation w.e.f. 03.10.2005.

25

8.14. In the aforesaid background facts, the Patna High Court was

fully justified in dismissing the Writ Petitions and the Letters

Patent Appeals filed by the Appellants. The High Court rightly

held that the seniority of the Appellants can be reckoned only

from the date of their regularisation in service w.e.f.

03.10.2005, and not from the date of their initial appointment

on 13.04.1988, as claimed by them. The Appellants had

secured  an illegal  appointment in  1988  through  the  back­

door, which  was  wholly illegal and  de hors  the Statutory

Rules. Their services came to be regularised only on

03.10.2005. As per Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules,

1953 the seniority of officers shall be determined with

reference to the date of their substantive appointment to the

service. Hence, the claim for seniority from the date of their

initial appointment was wholly untenable, misconceived, and

contrary to statutory Rules.

8.15. In view of the aforesaid findings, the present Civil Appeals are

dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned Judgment

and Order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Patna High Court

26

in L.P.A. Nos. 491 of 2013, 257 of 2013 and 509 of 2013 is

hereby affirmed.

Pending I.A.s, if any, are disposed of by the present

Judgment.

Ordered accordingly.

…..……...........................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

..….……..........................J. (INDU MALHOTRA)

New Delhi April 22, 2019.

27