- (1.) BHANWAR Singh, J. This writ petition is directed against the impugned seniority list of January 5, 2004, as contained in Annexure-1. This list alleged to be contrary to the rules is sought to be quashed. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider them for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger in accordance with the erstwhile seniority list of July 23, 2003 with modification of the said list pursuant to this Court's order dated 16-9-2003 excluding the names of Deputy Forest Rangers whose appointments were based on ad hoc or officiating basis.
(2.) SHORTLY stated, the petitioners' case is that the seniority list dated 23-7-2003 was issued on the basis of the substantive appointment of Deputy Forest Rangers. According to the U. P. Subordinate Forest Service (Rangers, Deputy Rangers and Foresters) Rules, 1951 (hereafter known to be as the Rules, 1951), the Conservator of Forests is the appointing authority of the Foresters and Deputy Forest Rangers (Rule 12), whereas the appointing authority of Forest Rangers is the Chief Conservator of Forests. The post of Chief Conservator of Forests has been redesignated as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests who is the Head of Department. In terms of the order dated 21-9-1988, issued by the Department, the eligibility/seniority of Deputy Forest Rangers was liable to be determined from the date of substantive appointments as Deputy Forest Rangers. Despite this rule of the seniority to be determined with effect from the date of substantive appointment, the impugned seniority list has been prepared to the detriment of the petitioners. As a consequence to the infringement of the said rule, the seniority list dated 5-1- 2004 is liable to be quashed. As a matter of fact, the impugned seniority list has been prepared under Rule 6 of the U. P. Government Servants (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter to be referred to as Seniority Rules, 1991. The first seniority list issued under the Seniority Rules, 1991 was notified on 1-7-1996 which was challenged by the petitioners before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal in claim petition No. 395 of 1997. The said claim petition, alongwith similar other petitions, was ultimately allowed by the Services Tribunal vide its judgment dated 20-2-1998. The tribunal quashed the seniority list dated 1-7-1996 and directed for preparation of a list of Deputy Forest Rangers for the purpose of promotion to the post of Forest Rangers at the State level on the basis of seniority lists drawn by the appointing authorities according to the length of substantive service of Deputy Rangers. The State of U. P. , however, preferred a writ petition No. 971 of 1998. The judgment of the tribunal was stayed. The writ petition is still pending. However, the High Court in that writ petition passed an order on 22-7-1998. The stay order expired on 1-5-2001 as the Court declined to extend the interim order. In this situation, though the writ petition is still pending, yet the judgment of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal is binding upon the State authorities for all purposes. On 9-5-2002, the High Court passed a detailed order in writ petition No. 653 (S/b) of 2002 and directed the State Government to hold regular selection for filling up the promotional quota posts of Forest Rangers within a period of four months. In consequence, a tentative seniority list was issued on 27-12-2002 inviting objections up to 23-7-2002 and the final seniority list was issued on 23-7-2003. The names of the petitioners in that seniority list were shown at Serial Nos. 42, 38 and 41 respectively. Though the said final seniority list dated 23-7- 2003 was prepared on the basis of date of substantive appointments as Deputy Forest Rangers, yet some Deputy Forest Rangers who were promoted on the basis of being toppers in the Forests Training Course were also included therein. Since the promotion of toppers in the Forests Training Course was officiating in nature, their inclusion in the final seniority list became a subject matter of dispute in writ petition No. 5837 (S/s) of 2003.
(3.) THIS Court, vide its order of September 16, 2003, stayed the operation of the said seniority list as induction of the officiating Deputy Forest Rangers was considered to be contrary to the rules and as such illegal. The Chief Conservator Forests (Administration and Planning) U. P. Lucknow taking wrong advantage of this Court's clear-cut direction modified the seniority list and distorted it and thereby complicated the whole issue. The said authority ignored the rules and went beyond the scope of the modification as directed by this Court as also by the Services Tribunal. Again, the respondent No. 3 included in the seniority list the officiating Deputy Forest Rangers against the rules and also included those Foresters/range Clerks who were superseded but promoted subsequently. Such Foresters/range; Clerks were granted seniority on the basis of their initial cadre which was again in conflict with the Rules, 1951. As a consequence, the seniority of the petitioners in the impugned seniority list was lowered down by hundreds of position and this resulted in serious prejudice to them. It is in these circumstances, the impugned seniority list has been challenged by the petitioners. The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed their response through the counter-affidavit of Shri D. N. Bhatt, I. F. S. , the Chief Conservator of Forests. Shri Bhatt stated that all the Deputy Forest Rangers working in the department are substantive appointees at the feeding post of Foresters and since the feeding cadre of Forester is the only cadre for promotion to the post of Deputy Forest Ranger, the seniority list has been prepared accordingly on the basis of the seniority of the feeding cadre, i. e. that of Foresters. The seniority list of January 5, 2004 impugned in their present writ petition has been prepared in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1991. Mr. Bhatt has justified the validity of the impugned seniority list and he even referred to the statements of the petitioners' Counsel in writ petition No. 971 (S/b) of 1998 regarding preparation of the seniority list according to the provisions of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1991. The list in question has been prepared with a view to carry out a writ of mandamus issued by a Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 653 (S/b) of 2002, Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. & Ors. , whereby directions were issued to complete the promotional quota of Forest Range Officers by promoting the Deputy Forest Rangers. It is a settled law that the seniority should always be determined on the basis of the feeding cadre and even if an incumbent was promoted to the next higher post later to his junior, he would get the seniority of the feeding cadre alongwith other benefits. It is in this context that the seniority list in question has been prepared on the basis of the substantive appointment in the feeding cadre as per Seniority Rules, 1991. In the feeding cadre of Foresters, the posts of Range Clerks had been merged in the year 1976 and now since the said feeding cadre of the Foresters and the Range Clerks had amalgamated, all such Foresters and Range Clerks will be governed by the seniority determined in the said initial cadre. The seniority list dated 1-7-1996 validity of which was questioned before the Services Tribunal was prepared on the basis of the substantive appointment on the post of Forester/range Clerk. The judgment of the Services Tribunal which had set aside the said list is still subject matter of writ petition No. 971 (S/b) of 1998. Mr. Bhatt conceded that Rule 5 (b) (1) and (2) of Seniority Rules, 1951 is still operative in its original form, yet he asserted that since there was no direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Forest Rangers, the cadre of foresters would be considered to be their feeding cadre and not the cadre of Deputy Forest Rangers. It has also been stated that as on date, there is not a single Deputy Forest Ranger who must have been a direct recruit in that cadre. As regards the Foresters who were designated as training toppers and designated as officiating Deputy Forest Ranger, it has been mentioned that the Government Orders dated 26-2-1966 and 6-2-1971 on the basis of which such officiation was authorized have now been withdrawn but since they have been working as Deputy Forest Rangers for long, their seniority has been determined as per the seniority of the feeding cadre of Forests and since there was no direction either from the State Government or from the High Court to revert such persons, their names have been included in the seniority list of Deputy Forest Rangers.;