JUDGMENT

HANSARIA, J.- The incessant dispute of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees needs solution in these appeals relating to the incumbents belonging to the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Maharashtra Forests Service, Class II.

2. Two of the direct recruits approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, making a grievance about their seniority qua some promotees. The Tribunal after examining the matter in great detail allowed the petition by quashing two of the State Governments decisions and directing the respondents before it to determine inter se seniority by following the quota rule. Feeling aggrieved, the State as well as some of the promotees have preferred these appeals.

3. There is no dispute before us that the service rule did lay down quota of 1:1 between the promotees and direct recruits. It is also not in dispute that appointment at the relevant time had not been made as per the quota. The real bone of contention between the parties is whether on the facts it could be said that quota rule had broken down, which stand of the appellants did not find favour with the Tribunal. Secondly, could it be said that promotions in the present case were not fortuitous, because of which in view of what was held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Assn. case {Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, the seniority has to be reckoned from the date of promotion.

4. Insofar as the first aspect of the case is concerned, we find that the State had advanced two reasons for not making direct appointments to the posts in question for a long period of 10 years. The Tribunal has dealt with the same in para 22 of the impugned judgment. As to the first reason, which was nonavailability of pre-recruitment training facility for the Assistant Conservator of Forests, the Tribunal has observed that this reason is perfunctory, because the State did not bring on record as to how many seats for the training were required and how many were not allotted. The second reason given was the publication of Indian Forests Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, in 1970, as per which Rules the initial recruitment to the Indian Forests Service was required to be made from the State Forests Service. The Tribunal has observed that even if that was so, that was in the year 1970 and it is not understandable as to why direct recruitments were not made in the succeeding years till 1981.

5. Shri Dholakia, appearing for some of the promotees, has strenuously urged that the Tribunal was not correct in not giving due weight to the reasons advanced by the State in not having made direct recruitment in time as required by the Rules. Having noted the reasons given by the Tribunal for non-acceptance of the stand taken by the State, we do not think if the examination of the matter by us under Article 136 of the Constitution would permit us to describe the view taken by the Tribunal so unreasonable as to merit interference with the same. We, therefore, hold that the present was not a case about which it could be said that the quota rule had broken down. In this connection it would be apposite to refer to Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India {1992 Supp (1) SCC 272 and A.N. Sehgal v. Raje Ram Sheoran 1992 Supp (1) SCC 304 which are judgments by three-Judge and two-Judge Benches respectively. Both these cases dealt with the promotions given to the concerned persons in excess of the quota, because of which it was stated that their promotions were not according to rules. The promotions were, therefore, held to be fortuitous; it was also observed that the seniority could not be counted from the dates of fortuitous promotions. These cases voiced the feeling of the Court that the State having made the rules, should implement them in letter and spirit; any justification for dereliction in implementation should not be countenanced; it