IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that training periods for direct recruits are not counted as service until successful completion, impacting seniority rights.

JUDGMENT :

VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Devendra Chauhan, Government Pleader (Senior Advocate) for respondent No. 1, Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate for respondent No. 2, Mr. Rahul Kalangiwale, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 to 18 and Mr. A.A. Naik, Advocate for Respondent Nos.19 to 42.

2. Rule.

3. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the memorandum dated 4.6.2021 passed by respondent No. 2 thereby granting approval for treating the period of training undergone by respondent Nos.7 to 42 as period spent in service.

4. The petitioners are promotees and respondent Nos.7 to 42 are selected R.F.Os. through recruitment process. Controversy is between promotees and direct recruits about their inter se seniority.

5. Initial appointment of petitioners was as Foresters in the year 2006 and 2007, thereafter they were promoted to Range Forest Officer on ad-hoc basis in the year 2013 and by order dated 23.2.2015 they were confirmed.

6. In the year 2006 respondent No. 2 revised its Recruitment Rules introducing the appointment of post of Range Forest Officer (for short “R.F.O.”) by nomination. Appointment by promotion and nomination to be made in the ratio of 50:50. Again on 29.12.2011 the Recruitment Rules were revised and instead of recruitment through M.P.S.C. the selection was resolved to be made on the basis of recruitment examination conducted by respondent No. 2 itself. Rule 4 provides that selected candidates through nomination shall be on probation for a period of three years, out of which one and half year in Forestry Training College and the remaining one and half year in field training and it is a condition that the appointment of the candidate to be made only after successful completion of the training period.

7. Advertisement for direct recruits was issued on 27.3.2013 for 47 posts of R.F.Os. and clause 5.8.1 provided that period of training would cumulatively be of 3 years and after successful completion thereof, the candidate would be appointed on the regular post. The recruitment procedure for appointment of respondent Nos.7 to 42 was under the provisions of Recruitment Rules dated 29.12.2011.

8. On 18.3.2015 Government by resolution granted approval for direct appointment to other 21 posts of R.F.Os. The Board of Directors again revised the Recruitment Rules vide notification dated 5.2.2015. By said notification, it is resolved that the training period shall be treated as service period. Appointments of respondent Nos.7 to 42 were made under the provisions of Recruitment Rules on 29.12.2011 and the Rules contained in notification dated 5.2.2015 were proposed to be adopted only for the purpose of filling remaining 21 vacancies. The purpose of remaining 21 vacancies, therefore, cannot be applied to respondent Nos.7 to 42 as they were selected under the provisions of Recruitment Rules dated 29.12.2011.

9. During that period, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30.4.2016 appointed respondent Nos.7 to 42 on the post of Probationary Range Forest Officer w.e.f. 1.5.2016. Therefore, the date of their entry into service by direct recruitment to the post of Range Forest Officer shall be from 1.5.2016 and the appointments were to be confirmed only after completion of training period. Some of the respondents/employees made representation to respondent No. 2 demanding to consider their training period as service period and accordingly place them higher in the seniority list. Respondent No. 2 rejected the said representation. In the meantime, Board of Directors took the decision to promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant Manager on ad-hoc basis.

10. Respondent Nos.7 to 42 preferred Writ Petition No. 1568/2018 seeking correction in the date of their entry into service at the post of R.F.O. which is now withdrawn by respondent Nos.7 to 42. In said petition, respondent No. 2 opposed the reliefs sought by respondent Nos.7 to 42. Different petitions chal