Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
Vishram Meena S/o Shri Gopiram Meena - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Forest Department and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12478 of 2022
Decided On : 08-11-2023
Seniority - Forest Guards - Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 - 10.10.2016 - Summary: The court discussed the assignment of seniority to Forest Guards upon inter-divisional transfer and the exceptions to this rule. It highlighted the lack of administrative exigency in the transfer of respondent No.5, leading to the conclusion that his seniority should not have been counted from the date of his initial appointment in the previous division. The impugned seniority lists and promotion orders were quashed, and the respondents were directed to assign seniority to the petitioner over respondent No.5 and conduct the promotion exercise afresh.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and respondent No.5 were appointed as Forest Guards in different Forest Divisions. The petitioner challenged the assignment of seniority to respondent No.5 upon his transfer to the petitioner's division and subsequent promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer of respondent No.5 did not occur due to administrative exigency, leading to the conclusion that his seniority should not have been counted from the date of his initial appointment in the previous division. The impugned seniority lists and promotion orders were quashed, and the respondents were directed to assign seniority to the petitioner over respondent No.5 and conduct the promotion exercise afresh.
Issues: The main issue was the assignment of seniority to respondent No.5 upon his transfer to the petitioner's division and its impact on subsequent promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of administrative exigency in the transfer, respondent No.5's seniority should not have been counted from the date of his initial appointment in the previous division.
Final Decision: The present writ petition was allowed, and the impugned seniority lists and promotion orders were quashed. The respondents were directed to assign seniority to the petitioner over respondent No.5 and conduct the promotion exercise afresh.
ORDER :
1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, in alternative respondents be directed to determine the seniority of the private respondent from the day when he was joined in forest division, Bhilwara.
iii. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
iv. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Forest Guard w.e.f. 10.05.2011 in Forest Division, Bhilwara whereas, the respondent No.5 also came to be appointed on the post Forest Guard w.e.f. 21.04.2011 in Forest Division, Bundi. It is thus, apparent that the petitioner and respondent No.5 though were appointed on the post of Forest Guard but their initial appointment was made in different Forest Divisions. The services of the petitioner and respondent No.5 are governed by Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 (hereafter referred to as “the rules of 2015”). The Office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur by an order dated 10.10.2016 transferred respondent No.5 from Forest Division, Bundi to Forest Division, Bhilwara. The office of Deputy Forest Conservator, Bhilwara on 24.04.2018 issued a seniority list of Forest Guards working under him as on 01.04.2018. In the seniority list dated 24.04.2018, the name of the petitioner figures at serial No.27, whereas name of respondent No.5 figures at serial No.17. The Forest Guards working in the respondent department are having an avenue of promotion on the post of Assistant Forester. The office of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bhilwara, on 26.09.2019, issued an office order stating inter alia that the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 26.08.2019 for recommending names of candidates for promotion on the post of Assistant Forester from the post of Forest Guard against the vacancies of year 2019-20 and the department by accepting the recommendations of DPC has decided to accord promotion to the eligible candidates against the vacancies of year 2019-20. In the promotion order dated 26.09.2019, the name of the petitioner finds mention at serial No.3 whereas the name of respondent No.5 was at serial No.1.
3. The petitioner immediately after issuance of promotion order dated 26.09.2019 submitted representations to the respondents stating that the respondent No.5 has been wrongly assigned seniority over the petitioner, against the post of Forest Guard working in the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bhilwara. The petitioner in the representation stated that since the respondent No.5 was transferred from Forest Division, Bundi, to Forest Division Bhilwara, he ought to have been given seniority for the post of Forest Guard, from the date of his joining in the Forest Division, Bhilwara. In other words, the petitioner by way of submitting representations requested the respondent to assign seniority to the respondent No.5 in Forest Division Bhilwara below the petitioner and thereafter by convening meeting of Review DPC, promote him on the post of Assistant Forester over and above respondent No.5.
4. Drawing attention of the Court towards office order dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure-3), issued by the office of Principal Chief Conservat
Seniority among Forest Rangers is determined by the date of appointment in the absence of specific rules, not merely by merit in selection.
The court emphasized the principles of natural justice, good conscience, and equity in the preparation of the seniority list for promotion, and ruled that the service rendered by promotees on account....
A request for mutual transfer with knowledge that it forfeits seniority bars subsequent claims to prior service benefits in seniority.
Retrospective promotion cannot be granted to an employee from a date when the employee was not borne in the cadre. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules was found inapplicable to determine the int....
The court established that the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules permit centralized promotions for Assistant Foresters without requiring division-level processes.
Acceptance of transfer conditions that require forfeiture of seniority precludes subsequent claims for seniority, and delay in raising such claims can render them stale.
The court established that seniority and promotions must be based on the date of regularization, ensuring fair treatment among employees in similar positions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
