ORDER

1. These writ petitions are filed claiming directions to the respondents to correct the date of appointment of the petitioner as 3.3.2011 in impugned list Annexure-P/12 wherein name of the petitioner in W.P. No.26990/2021 is shown at serial No.175 and his initial date of appointment in service is shown as 23.7.2015 and the name of another petitioner-Rajbendra Mishra is mentioned at serial No.182.

2. It is submitted that in fact these petitioners were working under different departments of the State and they competed in the entrance examination which was conducted by M.P. Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and for the Forest Rangers. Petitioners cleared upto main examination but were not allowed to participate in the interview process on the ground that they were overage.

3. It is submitted that then one of the petitioners namely Vidya Bhushan Mishra filed W.P. No.1157/2011 which was allowed vide order dated 10.3.2015 whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court held that in terms of the provisions contained in Clause-7 of the advertisement which provided age relaxation upto the maximum age of 38 years even to the employees of local bodies and since Vidya Bhushan Mishra was working as a Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-I, at Government Higher Secondary School, Teonthar, Distt. Rewa was held to be eligible for age relaxation and was permitted to participate in the interview process. He participated in the interview and was selected when result was declared by the M.P. Public Service Commission on 2nd May, 2015 as contained in Annexure-P/4. Thereafter they were given notional seniority and Vidya Bhushan Mishra was placed below serial No.5 at serial No.5A. Similarly Rajbendra Mishra was placed below serial No.12 at serial No.12A.

4. It is petitioners' case that since they were given notional seniority w.e.f. 2011 though actual appointment order was issued on 13th July, 2015, therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in Annexure-IA/1 i.e. Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, wherein Regulation 5(2) provides for the committee to consider for inclusion to the said list, the cases of members of the State Forest Services in the order of seniority in that service of a number which is equal to three times the number referred to sub-regulation (1).

5. Thus, reading this, it is submitted that admittedly petitioners are senior and petitioner -Vidya Bhushan Mishra finds place at serial No.5A above intervenor - Amit Singh and Rishi Mishra whose name appears at serial No.6 & 8, then in the order of seniority, petitioners' names should have been recommended for consideration.

6. Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 29th November, 2022 (Annexure-P/20) by way of amendment for which I.A. No.5333/2023, an application for amendment, is allowed and the document is taken on record. Challenging this document, it is submitted that Union Public Service Commission vide communication dated 29th November, 2022 made to the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal has wrongly interpretation provisions contained in Regulation 5 of 1966 Regulations and the proviso below those regulations by giving erroneous interpretation to words "continuous service" and, thus, has caused injustice to the petitioners.

7. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. K.B. Rajoria [(2000) 3 SCC 562], it is submitted that under similar facts and circumstances Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue. Reading from para-12, it is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.B. Rajoria (supra), referring to earlier decision in the case of K. Madhavan v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 566] has held as under :

"In our view, therefore, expression 'on a regular basis' would mean the appointment to the post on a regular basis in contradistinction to appointment on ad hoc or stopgap or purely temporary basis."

8. Thereaf