The main legal principle established in the judgment is that seniority is to be determined from the date of actual appointment to the post, and no retrospective effect can be given to the order of appointment. The interpretation of the relevant rules and the fairness of the seniority dispute were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT:

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is a classic example of the internal fight between the direct employees and the promoted employees in the matter of inter-se seniority.

3. The appeal has been filed by five appellants challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was confirmed. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein. In the writ petition the respondents herein, who are the directly appointed Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the "ACF" for short) had challenged an order passed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh dated 8.6.2004 vide No. FOR 376/E(A)/2001/4901-61 granting retrospective effect promotions to the appellants herein with effect from 2.11.1994. With that retrospective effect the respondent nos.3 to 7 herein became junior to the appellants since they were all appointed in the year 1996 after direct examination to the post of ACF. The learned Judge found that giving such retrospective effect would be illegal and on the concerned date they were not even borne on the cadre of ACF and were only serving as Range Forest Officer. He also found that in the unamended Rule 5 which provided for method of Recruitment, there was no 50:50 quota for the direct recruits and the promotees which quota came to be introduced only by way of an amendment effected to Arunachal Pradesh Forest Rules vide notification No.FOR.391/E-A/90/32343 dated 24.9.1999 and as such even if the respondents herein were given more than 50% posts in the cadre of ACF, it was permissible and as such the promotions made of the appellants herein for the first time in the year 2001 could not be dated back by giving retrospective effect from the year 1994.

4. In order to understand the controversy some facts would be necessary. All the present appellants herein started their career in the post of Forest Rangers and after their training in the Forest Rangers College, Kurseong, they were appointed as Forest Rangers with effect from 7.7.1984. The post of Forest Rangers is the feeder post for the post of ACF. There are Service Rules for governing the service conditions called Arunchal Pradesh Forest Service Rules. These Rules provide, inter alia, that a Forest Ranger would have to put in five years of service before being promoted to the post of ACF. In that way the appellants herein had become entitled for being considered for promotion by 1989. They were, however, not promoted in the year 1989 and were in fact promoted on 10.6.2002. However, in the meantime the respondents herein were selected after the competitive examination and were appointed in the year 1996. Naturally, the respondents herein were senior to the appellants in the cadre of ACF. The government on account of the representations made constituted another Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "DPC" for short) and the present appellants were awarded the notional promotion with retrospective effect, i.e., from December, 1994. This order was passed on 20th May, 2004. Because of this order all the appellants would become senior to all the directly appointed respondents and for this precise reason the said order came to be challenged before the Guwahati High Court which challenge was accepted by the learned Single Judge and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench which has necessitated the present appellants to come before us.

5.Shri C.M. Nayar, Senior Advocate urged before us that the appointments of the respondents herein were in excess of quota and, therefore, amounted to fortuitous appointment without carrying the seniority with such appointments. He painstakingly pointed out that all the appellants who were appointed in 1984 had unblemished service and, therefore, they had earned a right after five years of service to be considered for the promotion to th