1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. W.P.No.18517/2010(s) Mukund Narain Trivedi -Versus- The State of M.P. & others. W.P.No.12703/2010(s) Atul Kumar Mishra -Versus- The Principal Secretary, State of M.P. & others. W.P.No.11505/2006(s) Mukund Narain Trivedi -Versus- The State of M.P. & others. W.P.No.12702/2010(s) Prem Narayan Mishra -Versus- The Principal Secretary, State of M.P. & others. W.P.No.14681/2010(s) Rajeev Kumar Mishra -Versus- The State of M.P. & others. 2 W.P.No.17421/2010(s) S.S. Uddey -Versus- The State of M.P. & others. W.P.No.17423/2010(s) Preetam Pal Titare -Versus- The State of M.P. & others. PRESENT : Hon’ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. Shri A.M. Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Ashish Trivedi, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents No.5,6, 7 & 8. ....[W.P.No.18517/2010(s)]. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri A.M. Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Ashish Trivedi, for the respondent No.3. Smt. Gulab Kali Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 3 Shri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6. Shri V. S. Shroti, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Vikram Johri, for the respondent No.8. ....[W.P.No.12703/2010(s)]. Shri A.M. Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Ashish Trivedi, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for respondents No.3, 4 & 7. ....[W.P.No.11505/2006(s)]. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri V.S. Shroti, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Vikram Johri, for the respondent No.3. ....[W.P.No.12702/2010(s)]. Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri V.S. Shroti, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Vikram Johri, for the respondent No.5. ....[W.P.No.14681/2010(s)]. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 and 5. Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 4 Shri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for respondents No.6 and 7. ....[W.P.No.17421/2010(s)]. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 and 5. Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Shri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for respondents No.6 and 7. ....[W.P.No.17423/2010(s)].
ORDER( .11.2012) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner ventilating his grievance against the order dated 12.11.2010 and since the claim made by the petitioner in the present petition has been resisted by the private respondents, who have also filed the connected writ petitions, all these matters were heard in a bunch. For the purposes of this order, the facts are taken from Writ Petition No.18517/2010 and Writ Petition No.12703/2010. 2: It is contended by the petitioner that earlier a seniority list was issued and the juniors to the petitioner were given placement above the petitioner. A representation was made seeking correction in the gradation list, but since that was not being considered, Writ Petition No.11505/2006(s) was filed. In the meantime, certain orders were issued and, therefore, an interim prayer was made in the pending writ petition by the petitionerr and this Court has directed that any promotion if made on the basis of the seniority list impugned shall be provisional and subject to final 5 decision of this petition. It is averred that certain other juniors have also filed the writ petition seeking correction in the gradation seniority list and all such matters are pending consideration before this Court, therefore, consolidated writ petition is required to be filed. 3: In short, the claim of the petitioner is that the M.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission for brevity) initiated the process of recruitment in the State Forest Services and conducted an examination in the year 1989. The result of the said examination was declared after conducting of interview on 28.2.1990. In the waiting list, the name of the petitioner is mentioned at Serial No.2. The similar examination was conducted in the year 1990, in which again the petitioner had taken part. The petitioner was qualified and was declared successful in the said examination as his name was mentioned at Serial No.6 of the result declared by the Commission on 31.1.1991. However, the appointment of the petitioner was made pursuance to the aforesaid selection and he was sent for training in a nominated college. The persons who were below in the waiting list of the year 1989 examination were said to be taken in the merit list on account of certain available vacancies and they were sent for training. However, though the petitioner was above in the waiting list than the said person his claim was not considered for sending him for training. This is how the appointment of the petitioner was delayed and he was shown junior to certain persons. Though in the earlier gradation list the seniority of the petitioner was rightly maintained, but in the gradation seniority list of the year 2003, the seniority of the petitioner was disturbed against which the representation was made, but it was said to be rejected without any justified reason. Again when the representation was made, in respect of the gradation seniority list of the subsequent year, nothing was done. It is contended that in case the appointment from amongst the wait listed candidate was to be done, after extending the validity of the period of the said list with the consultation of the Commission, the petitioner should have been offered the appointment prior to the 6 appointment of others, but since this has not been done, the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate claim. In view of this, the order rejecting representation of the petitioner is not justified and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4: Refuting the allegations made by the petitioner, a return has been filed by the respondent/State. It is contended that there were certain candidates selected in the merit list of the year 1989, by the Commission and the said list was sent for consideration before the State. On physical verification and on certain other conditions some of the candidates were not found fit to be appointed and their names were scored out of the select list. In such situation, the wait listed candidates were asked to appear before the Board for medical examination. In the meantime, the examination for the selection of candidates for appointment in the year 1990 was also started by the Commission in which the petitioner took part. Since he was selected on merits in the said examination, he was sent for training. When the fact came to the notice that the vacancies for the year 1989 have remained unsuccessful, request was made for extending the validity period of the year 1989 and since the said list was revalidated with the consent of the Commission, the name of the persons who were in the list were considered and they were sent for training. The petitioner was given the benefit of placement in the gradation seniority list on the basis of selection held in the year 1989, but this was objected by some of the persons and after scrutiny of the records, it was found that the petitioner could not have been given the appointment with effect from the year 1989. This being so, the impugned order has been issued and the right fixation of seniority is done. 5: The private respondents arrayed in the writ petition have also filed their return. As has been pointed out, some of the persons have approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.12703/2010, and their writ petition has also been heard. Much is stated about such claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition and in fact submissions have been made that the entire claim of the petitioner is misconceived, therefore, the petition 7 filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. It is contended by these respondents that no unwarranted benefit can be granted to the petitioner in violation of the Scheme of the statutory Rules. 6: not in view of this, it would be necessary to consider the claim made in Writ Petition No.12703/2010 as well. The petitioner in the said case have come with the plea that the respondent No.3 in this writ petition, who in fact is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.18517/2010 could not have been granted the benefit of appointment with retrospective effect pursuance to his inclusion in the supplementary or waiting list of the year 1989, because the said person has never appeared for medical examination despite a call given by the State authorities. It is contended that the said person has accepted the appointment pursuance to his selection made in the year 1990 and as the amendment has been made in the statutory Rules at the time of the appointment of the aforesaid person, he would deem to be included in the service only on the date of his sending for the training and no benefit of retrospective appointment could be extended to him. It is further contended by the petitioner in this case that the other respondents were also not entitled to grant of benefit of retrospective appointment as their appointment was also not in consonance to the provisions of the Rules which were in vogue at the time of making of such appointment. It is contended that if the Scheme of the recruitment is scrutinised in appropriate manner, as per the well settled law the persons like petitioner in this case cannot be deprived of their right of seniority over and above the aforesaid persons. 7: Shri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and 6 has contended that in terms of the directions issued by the competent authority, the said respondents were granted the benefit of selection and, therefore, if the order was passed protecting their seniority, no wrong was committed. As far as the respondent No.8 is concerned, a detailed return has been filed and it is contended that in view of various law laid down by the Apex Court, the said respondent was entitled to the benefit of selection 8 with retrospective effect, inasmuch as, earlier his application was rejected by the Commission, on the ground that the said respondent was overage. Such an action was challenged in Original Application No.396/1989 and an interim protection was granted by the Tribunal on 16.2.1989, categorically directing that he name of the applicant if included in the merit list, one post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and one post of Forest Ranger be kept vacant until further orders. It is contended that by order dated 28.1.1992, the Original Application of the respondent No.8 was allowed and it was said that he was to be permitted to take part in the selection by grant of relaxation upto the age of 38 years in terms of the order of the respondent/State and in case the respondent No.8 is selected, he would be entitled to the appointment on the said post. Accordingly, a corrected order was issued on 8.10.1993 and the name of the respondent No.8 was included in the select list. In view of this, he was to be granted the seniority from the date of his initial appointment and not from a later date. At any rate, no orders were required to be passed in respect of the claim of respondent No.8 as the same was already adjudicated by a competent authority and, therefore, if such a benefit was already extended to the respondent No.8, an appropriate order is passed, the same cannot be said to be bad in law. This being so, as far as the respondent No.8 is concerned, the entire petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 8: Much or less similar is the stand taken by the respondents in other cases and, therefore, all such petitions are clubbed together and are heard together. 9: Heard all the counsel for the petitioner in all the cases as also learned counsel for respondents at length and perused the record. 10 : For consideration of such rival submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and respondents in all the cases, it would be necessary to examine the Scheme of the Rules, with respect to the recruitment and from which date, the benefit of seniority would be available to such persons appointed under the Rules. The Rules 9 governing the recruitment in the Forest Services are known as M.P. State Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short), which have been framed in exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The constitution of the services is prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rules which prescribe that the services shall consist of the persons, recruited at the commencement of the services and who were holding substantively the post specified in Schedule-I. The persons recruited to the services before commencement of the Rules and the persons recruited after commencement of the Rules in accordance to the provisions of the Rules are also included in the constitution of the services. The method of recruitment is prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules, which by direct recruitment through a competitive examination and by promotion from the post of Range Officer or equated post belonging to the sub-ordinate Forest services Class III Executive. The number of vacancies which are to be filled in by direct recruitment or promotion were to be determined on each occasion by the State Government in consultation with the Commission. All appointments to the services after commencement of the Rules were to be made in accordance to the provisions made under Rule 6 of the Rules. The procedure of direct recruitment by holding a competitive examination is prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules. The conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment are prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules prescribes the physical fitness standard and sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules prescribes the educational qualification. Under Rule 12 of the Rules, a list of candidates is to be prepared after holding a competitive examination by the Commission and the said list is to be arranged in the order of merit of candidates, who have qualified by such standard as the Commission may determine. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Rules as existed to be its amendment specifically prescribes that the candidate will be considered for “training”. against the available vacancies in order in which their names appeared in the select list, subject to the provisions of the Rules and the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rule”
1961. (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1961 for short). Sub- rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules prescribes that the inclusion of the name of a candidate in the aforesaid list will confer no right for training/appointment unless the Government is satisfied after such enquiry as may be necessary that the candidate is suitable in all respect for appointment to the services. Rule 13, 14 and 15 of the Rules are important for the purposes of interpretation of the Scheme of recruitment, therefore, the same are reproduced in full for better appreciation :-
“13. Training in Forestry.-(1) A candidate selected by direct recruitment shall be deputed to undergo a two years Diploma Course in Forestry at the Forest College Dehradun or any other equivalent College as may be decided by Government, in the regular course next following his selection. (2) Before joining the college, the selected candidate shall execute an agreement and a security bond in the prescribed forms. (3) Tuition fees for the entire course and travelling allowance for the journey of the candidate from the place of training to the place of posting as also journey expenses during the course of training will be borne by Government. During the course of such training, Government will also grant such stipend and an equipment allowance as may be required under the College rules. (4) A candidate who does not complete the training successfully and pass the examinations prescribed by the concerned College at the end of two years shall not be appointed to the Service and the terms and conditions of the agreement and the security bond executed by him shall be enforced against him.
14. Appointment.-(1) On successful completion of training, the candidate will be appointed on the post of Extra Assistant Conservator of Forest in the State Forest Service in the time scale of pay as given in Schedule 1: Provided that candidate will be bound by any alteration or modifications which Government may make in regard to pay-scale and other conditions of service from time to time. 11 (2) Appointment will be made from the date following the date of Convocation. Salary shall be payable from the date of actual joining the service in the State. (3) The period of training of two years will qualify for calculating the person of the officer concerned.
15. Probation for Direct Recruits.- A candidate appointed to the Service by direct recruitment will ordinarily be on probation for a period of two years. Probationers will be confirmed after two years subject to their fitness for confirmation and after having passed the prescribed departmental examination within this period.”
. 11 : A training is prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules aforesaid, which makes it clear that the duration of the training would be two years in a college of Forestry. A final selection of candidate is to be made for sending him for training by the State Government. The Commission is simply required to prepare a list of candidates, who have passed the written examination held by the Commission and the same is to be sent to the State Government. The Commission is not required to examine the physical fitness of such candidates. The physical fitness is to be examined by the State Government and as is prescribed under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, a candidate is required to undergo not only the physical test, but also a walk for 26 kms to be crossed in four hours only when such a candidate is selected, the selection became final and such a candidate is required to be sent for training. 12 : The appointment is to be made only after completion of training on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the State Forest service in the time scale of pay as mentioned in the Schedule. Earlier the provisions were made that the appointment will be made from the date following the date of convocation and the salary shall be payable from the date of actual joining the service in the State. A protection was given that the period of training of two years will qualify for calculating the same for the purposes of pension of the officer concerned. Rule 15 deals with 12 the probation period of a direct recruit. It prescribes that a candidate “appointed”. to the service by direct recruitment will ordinarily be a probation for a period of two years. Thus, the Rule as existed to be its amendment was very clear after selection by the Commission, the selected candidates were required to be examined physically and after successfully passing the said test by the candidates, they were required to be sent for training and on successful completion of training, they were to be appointed on probation of two years. 13 : The State Government made the amendment in the Rules on 12.7.1991. The amendment made in Rule 12(2) and (3) of the Rules completely change the nature of appointment. After the amendment, it was prescribed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Rules that subject to the provisions of the Rules and the Rules of 1961, the candidate will also be considered for “appointment”. against the available vacancies in the order in which their names appear in the list. Similarly, in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules, it is provided after amendment that inclusion of name of a candidate in the aforesaid will confer no right to appointment unless the Government is satisfied after such enquiry that the candidate is suitable in all respect for “appointment”. to the service. Similarly, period of probation as prescribed in Rule 13 of the Rules, the training as prescribed in the College of Forestry and the provisions relating to probation of such appointees have been completely amended which are reproduced for better appreciation :-
“13. Period of Probation:- (1) Every person appointed to the service out of the list referred to in rule, 12 will ordinarily be on probation for a period of 4 years. (2) The Government may, if it so thinks fit, extend the period of probation by a period not exceeding 1 year. (3) The Government may at any time during or at the end of the period of probation or extended period of probation discharge the probationer from service, if it is of the opinion that he is not likely to make himself a suitable officer.
14. Training in Forestry etc.- 13 (1) Every probationer shall on appointment be deputed to undergo a two years Diploma Course in Forestry at the Forest College, Dehradun or any other equivalent College as may be decided by the Government and to pass the prescribed examination at the end of two years. (2) Before joining the said College the probationer shall execute an agreement and security bond in the prescribed form. (3) The Government shall bear the cost on account of the tuition fees for the entire course and equipment allowance as required under the College rules. (4)(a)During the period of probation the probationer shall be paid the salary and allowances at the minimum of the time scale of pay as given in Schedule-1 and shall also draw travelling allowances as are applicable to officers of his grade. (b) On satisfactory completion of probation the pay shall be fixed taking into account the probation period. However, in case of extension of period of probation the grant of arrears of pay will be subject to decision of Government which shall, while deciding this matter take note of the fact whether the probationer has diligently pursued the training course/programmes and that the period of probation was not extended because of any neglect or lack of diligence on the part of the probationer in the prosecution of his training course/programme. (5) A probationer who fails to pass the examination as prescribed by the concerned College at the end of two years shall be afforded two more opportunities of appearing at and passing the same during the remaining period of his probation and if he fails to avail of these opportunities or pass the examination he shall be discharged from service and the terms and conditions of the agreement and security bond executed by him shall be enforced against him. Note- The two additional opportunities referred to in this sub- rule shall have to be availed of by the probationer only during the period of his initial probation and not the extended period of probation. 14 (6) After undergoing training in the diploma course for two years the probationer shall undergo such further training in the State as is laid down and pass such departmental examinations as are prescribed. (7) A probationer who fails to pass the prescribed departmental examinations shall be discharged from service. (8) On completion of the probation to the satisfaction of the Government the probationer shall be confirmed in the service.
15. Special Provisions relating to probationers and persons undergoing training on the coming into force of these amendments:- (1) Persons who have already been appointed on probation prior to coming into force of these amendments shall continue to be governed by the existing provisions of the rules. (2)(a) Such persons who are undergoing training in the diploma course at the Forest College, Dehradun on the coming into force of these amendments shall be deemed to have been appointed on probation to the service with effect from the coming into force of these amendments. (b) The period already spent on training by such persons shall be counted towards their probation and also for computation of their pension and inclusive of this period, the total period of their probation shall be 4 years as mentioned in sub-rule (1) of rule, 13. (c) Other provisions of these amendments shall also apply to such persons but no amount on account of difference between salary or allowances and stipend shall be paid.”
. 14 : The fixation of seniority in terms of the Rules of 1961, is completely changed in view of the amendment made by the State Government in the Rules. A comparative statement is required to be made to show what was the difference of the two Rules and how the seniority was required to be fixed :- Fixation of seniority as per unamended Fixation of seniority after amendment Rules in the Rules. (i) Protection of period of training was (i) From the day one persons sent on 15 only for the purposes of calculating the training deemed to be appointed in the same for grant of pension, but no service Government service and is entitled to get seniority from the initial date of training. the benefit of service seniority as the same became the part of the probation period in terms of Rule 15(2)(b). (ii) Salary from the date of joining in the (ii) Salary will be started from the date of State Services and not for the period of joining the training. training (iii) Appointment has to be made after (iii) Deemed to be appointed in the successful completion of training Government service from the date one, sent for training. 15 : From the aforesaid analysis of differences in the two Rules, it is clear that those who were appointed under the unamended Rules were in fact sent for training and on successful completion of their training, were to be appointed in the Government Service. Prior to 12.7.1991 any person sent on training, would not deem to be appointed in the service as his recruitment process was completed under the unamended Rules. Those who were appointed after 12.7.1991 or for whom the process of recruitment was started after 12.7.1991, they would be governed by the amended provisions of the Rules. Undisputedly, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.18570/2010 took part in a process of selection, which was started in the year 1989 i.e. much before the amendment in the Recruitment Rules, therefore, his service condition would be governed only and only by unamended Rules. He was though selected for the year 1989, but his name was put in the supplementary list which according to the respondents was acted upon after getting its period extended because of the fact that some of the candidates selected on merits were not found physically fit for sending them for training. Thus, as far as the process of recruitment and the appointment part is concerned, for the vacancies of the year 1989, it was not completed and the respondent State was required to get the list revalidated after obtaining approval from the Commission. 16 : It is not clear fro the record whether the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition had actually appeared for physical test or not. Some correspondence has been placed on record indicating 16 that the information was asked whether the petitioner had appeared before the Committee for physical test pursuance to a call letter issued to him or not. This has been submitted by the learned counsels that such information was not made available. The respondents have placed certain documents on record to indicate that queries were made in this respect, but no definite opinion was given. It appears that since the petitioner in this case did appear in the selection held for the year 1990, qualified on merits in the said selection and was sent for training, he was satisfied with the selection and did not challenge such act of the respondents. Only when he came to knot that persons below him in the supplementary list of the selection for the year 1989 have been given the appointment with retrospective effect, he started making claim. If an offer was extended to the petitioner, but the same was not acted upon by him, he would not be entitled to benefit of such an offer even if the same was accepted by somebody else and those persons were sent for training. However, the fact remains that the appointment of those persons were to be made only from the date of passing of the training examination and not from any other date as was specifically provided in the Rules, which were in vogue at the time when the said persons have taken part in the selection. They were not to be granted the benefit of amended provisions of the Rules. 17 : It is putforth by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.18517/2010 that in fact injustice was done to the said person, inasmuch as, his name was earlier rightly mentioned in the seniority list, but subsequently the seniority list was changed. It is contended that in detail the representation was made in this respect pointing out the fact that this could not be done making change in the seniority of the petitioner and putting him below the names of certain persons appointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner. In fact, it has to be demonstrated by the petitioner when he completed the training and from which date the order of appointment was issued in his respect. The order of appointment as placed on record by the petitioner 17 indicates that he was sent for training vide order dated 17.5.1991 in terms of the selection made by the Commission for the year 1990. Since the Rules were amended on the date of order so issued, he was shown to be appointed from the date he was sent for training. Had the select list prepared in the year 1989 includes the name of the petitioner, he would have been sent only for the training in the year 1990 and would not have been given the benefit of service seniority at least till 12.7.1991 when the amendment was made in the Rules. At any rate, the petitioner in the present case could be said to be appointed in the services with effect from 12.7.1991 and not prior to the said date. At any rate, the petitioner would not have ranked higher than the other co-respondents and the petitioners in W.P.No.12703/2010(s). Thus, virtually there is no substance in the claim made by the petitioner and his writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18 : not as far as the claim of persons who have approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.12703/2010(s) is concerned, as against the claim of respondent No.8, the benefit cannot be extended to them. The fact remains that the respondent No.8 was one of the participant in the selection to be held for the year 1989. However, his candidature was rejected at the initial stage by the Commission. The said issue was raised before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal. The interim protection was granted and later on Original Application filed by the said person has been allowed. Consequently, in terms of the order passed by a judicial authority the respondent No.8 has rightly been given the benefit over and above the petitioner. As far as the other respondents are concerned, those who were selected after the appointment of petitioners in this case or the selection was completed for them by holding the physical test and medical test at a later date, they will not be entitled to claim seniority over and above those who were said to be appointed prior to the appointment of those respondents. It is the contentions raised by the petitioners that some of the candidates though were selected for the year 1989-1990 and even 1991, but for them the selection process was not completed, 18 inasmuch as, either they failed in the physical test or for them belated action was taken by the State finalising their selection. As has been pointed out hereinabove, the selection process as per the unamended Rules as also after the amendment of Rules, completes only when the physical test etc. are completed and a report is submitted in that respect. Those who were though selected for the earlier year, but were not sent for training for any other reason except the aforesaid reason, cannot be denied the benefit of seniority. For the lapses on the part of the State authority if the vacancies were not properly worked out or the session of a particular College of Forestry was delayed, such persons cannot be denied the benefit of seniority. In fact, it was required to be seen by the State Government that only such posts are advertised for recruitment in respect of which approval is already granted by the College of Forestry. The claim of such persons are to be separated, each and every such case is to be considered independently and a decision is required to be rendered by the State authorities after obtaining all information in this respect. From the order impugned it appears that these aspects were not looked into in appropriate manner and only because certain merit order was suggested by the Commission, the order impugned has been issued fixing the seniority of persons like petitioner in the present case. Such an order of the respondents cannot be sustained. In fact, the respondent-State was required to give cogent reason for change of seniority of each and every person in the order impugned, but instead of doing this, change of seniority of certain persons have been done to their detriment. For example, petitioner No.1, who was at Serial No.24 of the list, so issued pursuant to the order dated 27.7.2009 has not been shown at Serial No.29. Similar is the situation with respect to the other petitioners and there is change of seniority of private respondents as well. The facts as have stated herein above, were required to be examined the the State in detail and then only the direction for grant of seniority was required to be issued. To this extent, the order of respondents cannot be sustained and to this extent the writ petition succeeds”
19. : Consequently, the Writ Petition No.18517/2010(s) is, hereby, dismissed. Writ Petition No.12705/2010(s) is, hereby, allowed to the extent that the order impugned is quashed with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of fixation of seniority of each and every candidate individually in terms of the provisions of the amended Rules which came into force with effect from 12.7.1991. Those who were appointed prior to this date, would be deemed to be selected under the unamended Rules and would stand appointed with effect from the date of coming into force of the amendment in the Rules. Those who were already selected and appointed after coming into force of the amended Rules, they would be entitled to get the benefit of seniority from the date of appointment on probation. Let this exercise be completed in respect of all the claimants in all the writ petitions, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. All other writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge /11/2012 A.Praj. 20 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P.No.3306/2006(s) P.N. Verma -Versus- M.P. State Electricity Board.
ORDERPost it for /11/2012 (K. K.Trivedi) Judge /11/2012