BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that in the first instance, under Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 vide promotion order dated 21. 6. 1978, the petitioner was promoted and appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forest on purely temporary basis for a period of six months from the date of taking over charge or till regularly selected candidates in accordance with the method prescribed under the aforesaid Rules are available whichever is earlier. This appointment was under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962. THEreafter D. P. C. for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest was convened for the vacancies of 1978 in July, 1983 in compliance of judgment of Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal and on the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forest against the vacancies of 1978. The case regarding respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 and about which there is no dispute is that the respondent No. 3 was appointed in 1978 after completion of training as required under Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 as was then existing. Shri K. N. Mathur was also appointed in 1978 after completing training under Rule 29 and Shri G. P. D. Vyas was appointed in 1979. The seniority list of Assistant Conservator of Forest as on 1. 3. 1990 was published on 6. 03. 1990 in which the petitioner's name was shown at serial No. 35 whereas Shri Safaat Hussain and Shri K. N. Mathur were shown at serial No. 18 and 19 respectively and Shri G. P. D. Vyas was shown at serial No. 32. The petitioner challenges the seniority list on simple ground that under Rule 35 of the Rules of 1962 which provides for providing seniority shows that if two or more persons are appointed to the service in the same year, a person appointed by promotion shall be senior to a person appointed by direct recruitment; There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was appointed by promotion against the vacancies of 1978 and the respondents No. 3 and 4 were appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forest in 1978 and respondent No. 5 in 1979 respectively after completion of training of Diploma course at Dehradun as required under Rule 29. Return has been filed by the respondents stating that there is no operation of quota rule amongst the direct recruitees and promotees to the State services as well as a preliminary objection as to the availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Service Tribunal was raised.
(3.) SINCE more than 14 years have passed after filing of the writ petition and its admission, I am not inclined to consider it appropriate to non-suit the petitioner on the aforesaid ground of alternative remedy, as it will perpetuate injustice if any caused to the petition if the other contentions are not examined on merits. On merits of the case shorn of all technicalities, the contention of the respondents is that the respondents No. 3 and 4, Safaat Hussain and Shri K. N. Mathur, were appointed against the vacancies of 1976 after completion of their training at the Forest Institute Dehradun and likewise Shri G. P. D. Vyas was appointed in 1979 against the vacancies of 1977 after the training at Dehradun. Since the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 were appointed against the vacancies of earlier years than the petitioner, their appointments may be treated as of 1976 and 1977 respectively, prior to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no error in operating the Rule 35 proviso (2) of the Rules of 1962 in respect of petitioner vis-a-vis answering respondents No. 3 to 5. Having considered the Rules, contention raised in the petition as well as in the reply, the contention raised by the respondents in the return is not well founded. The Rule 29 which was in force in 1978 when the appointments were given to the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 read as under:- " 29. Training :- (1) All candidates selected under rule 28 shall be required to undergo and complete successfully the Diploma Course in (or Forestry Wing only) and Diploma Course in Wild Life Preservation and such other course or training as the Government may prescribe (for Wild life Wing only) at the Indian Forest College, Dehradun or the corresponding course at any other Institution as may be determined by the government. Note:- (i) The Government shall make such contribution towards the training expenses as may be determined by + "it" from an accordance with such terms and conditions as may be laid down by + "it" (ii) During the Course of Training a candidate shall be subject to the rules and regulations of the Indian Forest College, Dehradun, or any other institution referred to above. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the Government in consultation with the Commission, on such terms including experience, age and procedure as may be laid down, may fill a vacancy of the Assistant Conservator of Forests for Forest wing and Wild Life Warden for Wild Life wing, in case a candidate fulfilling the conditions laid down in rule 11 (2) and Rule 11 (4) (ii) respectively is available and is otherwise found suitable for appointment to it. " ;