PARIHAR, J. - (1.) SINCE on same set of facts, the order passed by the Tribunal is under challenge, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) PETITIONER Vishnu Chandra Sharma after being selected by the Departmental Selection Committee for the post of Ranger Gr. I under Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules of 1963, was sent for training for the Sessions 1979-81. On completion of training, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Ranger Gr. I vide order dated 14. 4. 1981 and subsequently has also been confirmed on the above post w. e. f. 4. 5. 1988. Respondent Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, on the other hand, was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) in the recruitment held in the year 1978 and was sent for training for the Session 1979-80. After completion of training, the above Mr. Om Prakash Sharma was appointed on the post of Ranger Gr. I vide order dated 6. 2. 1980 and has also been confirmed on the above post w. e. f 1. 3. 1988. A seniority list of Ranger Gr. I was issued on 31. 10. 1992 in which name of the petitioner did not find place. However, subsequently the above seniority list was modified vide order dated 27. 11. 1992 by which name of the petitioner was placed above Mr. Om Prakash Sharma. A final seniority list was also published accordingly on 15. 12. 1992 on the basis of which further promotions were to be made on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. Aggrieved by the order dated 27. 11. 1992 as also final seniority list dated 15. 12. 1992 by which the petitioner has been placed senior to the above Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, an appeal was filed by Mr. Om Prakash Sharma before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. While partly allowing the appeal filed by Mr. Om Prakash Sharma vide order dated 31. 1. 1994, the Tribunal issued following directions: " (1) the fixing of the seniority of PR-3 above the appellant by impugned order dated 15. 12. 92 is quashed in relation to their inter se seniority. (2) the PR-3 and the appellant should be assigned seniority on the post of Ranger Gr. I on the basis of their date of confirmation under Rule 29 of 1963 Rules. Since the appellant was confirmed earlier he would rank senior to the PR-3. Therefore, their seniority be refixed as per our above findings. (3) the appellant's case be considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest by calling the meeting of the DPC to review the recommendations made in the meeting dated 23. 12. 92. The appellant's case be considered as per his seniority and if found suitable for promotion the recommendations may be revised and he would be entitled to the benefit of promotion with consequential benefits from the date his junior Shri Vishnu Chand Sharma was given such promotion. At this stage we do not intent to quash the promotion order of Shri Vishnu Chand Sharma. However, if the appellant is found suitable for promotion the order dated 12. 1. 93 be revised to insert the name of the appellant in place of PR-3. We allow 3 month's time from the date of this order to implement the above directions and in case of failure to implement the above directions within this time limit, the promotion of PR-3 Shri Vishnu Chand Sharma would automatically stand quashed. " The above order passed by the Tribunal has been challenged by the petitioner as also the State Government in the present writ petitions. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the relevant provisions of the rules. The facts, more of less, are not disputed. The petitioner as also Mr. Om Prakash Sharma had been selected for the post of Ranger Gr. I in the same year though through different agencies. The petitioner was sent for two years training whereas Mr. Om Prakash Sharma had been sent for one year training, may be on the basis of their qualifications possessed. After completion of training, the petitioner was appointed on 14. 4. 1981 on the post of Ranger Gr. I whereas Mr. Om Prakash Sharma had been appointed on 6. 2. 1980. The petitioner had been confirmed on 4. 5. 1988 whereas Mr. Om Prakash Sharma had already been confirmed on the post on 1. 3. 1988.
(3.) THEIR appears to be some anomaly under the rules to the extent of determining seniority of persons selected by different agencies for the same year. Rule 29 (3) (A) only clarifies the position as to how the seniority of the candidates selected through the same selection by the RPSC has to be determined. Even Rule 29 (3) also refers to the determination of seniority of the candidates selected in one and the same selection. There is no other clarification as to how the seniority of persons was to be determined when the selections have been made one by the RPSC and the other made by the Departmental Selection Committee from amongst in service candidates on the lower post. In such circumstances, when the sub-rule and the proviso provides for determination of vacancies only in particular circumstances and exigencies, in my opinion, the seniority can only be determined as per main provision of Section 29, i. e. from the date of confirmation. Since after de consideration and referring to the relevant provisions of the rules proper discretion has been used by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances, no further interference is called for by this Court. The writ petitions are dismissed accordingly as having no merits. The State Government may now implement the order of the Tribunal within three months from to- day. No order as to costs. .;