JUDGMENT

S. MOHAN, J.—Leave granted in all the matters.

2. All these appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment since they are directed against the judgment and order dated August 5, 1991 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 679 of 1988.

3. Prakash Chandra Misra (respondent 1 in all these appeals) was directly recruited to the Orissa State Forest Service Class II by the Orissa Public Service Commission in the year 1979. After completion of training for two years at Forest Service College, Burnihat, Assam he was appointed as an Assistant Conservator of Forests. He moved the Administrative Tribunal challenging the seniority of the Forest Rangers who were members of Orissa Subordinate Forest Service and were promoted as Assistant Conservators of Forests, between his recruitment and the joining of service after training. According to respondent 1, the promotees who were promoted in the years 1981 and 1982 ought to have been assigned a place below him as per recruitment rules. The seniority of direct recruits vis-a-vis the promotees required to be decided on the basis of the Orissa Forest Service Class II Recruitment Rules, 1959.

4. It was further urged that he was recruited in the year 1979 through the Public Service Commission. He had to undergo training for two years and thereafter he was appointed in the year 1981.

5. Therefore, the short question was whether the respondent was to be assigned seniority from the year 1979 (the year of recruitment) or from the year 1981 (the year of appointment). The Tribunal observed that Rule 9(a) of 1959 Rules read with Rule 6 would point out that the promotee officers were to be on probation for a period of two years like the direct recruits. Such direct recruits were also sent for training to the Forest Training College. The 1959 Rules used the word "recruited", the 1984 Rules used the word "appointed". These words must be assigned proper meaning. Inasmuch as the direct recruits were to be treated as seniors to promotees en bloc respondent 1 must be treated as a recruit of 1979 and ought to be treated as senior to the promotees.

6. The next question that came up for consideration was as to the application of quota rule. On this, the Tribunal held that both in the 1959 Rules as well as in the 1984 Rules, the promotees and direct recruits will be in the proportion of l/3rd and 2/3rd. In the present case, 1959 Rules being applicable there was no doubt that promotees have substantially encroached upon the quota for direct recruits. In view of that, promotions which have been made more than the quota prescribed in the rules have to be either adjusted against future vacancies in the promotion quota or reverted. Such promotions beyond the prescribed quota are illegal.

7. In view of these findings, the Tribunal held that the first respondent was entitled to be treated (i) as a direct recruit of 1979 and (ii) he shall be confirmed and promoted on the basis of being direct recruit of 1979. His seniority was to be fixed on the basis of his being a direct recruit of 1979 within the 2/3rd quota for direct recruits. These directions were to be. implemented within six months from the date of the order. On these terms, the petition of respondent 1 came to be allowed.

8. Aggrieved by this judgment, SLP (C) No. 615 of 1992 has come to be preferred by Prafulla Kumar Swain, a promotee (respondent 91 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal).

9. SLP (Civil) No. 1604 of 1992 has come to be preferred by Bijay Kishore Mohanty and 10 others (respondents before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal).

10. The State has preferred SLP (C) No. 4186 of 1992.

11. Mr Raju Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellant in SLP (C) No. 1604 of 1992 would submit that the first respondent was selected for undergoing superior Forest Service Course at the Forest Service College, Burnihat, Assam in the year 1979. Having regard to the terminology of the order which says "he was selected",