Supreme Court of India
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 154
- Decided
- 16 March 2010
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- DALVEER BHANDARI
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the settled seniority of the 1980‑81 graduate batch, quashing the 1993 order that attempted to reverse it.
Summary
The case concerned the inter‑se seniority of two batches of directly recruited Range Forest Officers in Gujarat – non‑graduates (1979‑81 batch) and graduates (1980‑81 batch). The State Government had initially settled seniority in favour of the graduates by orders dated 12 Oct 1982 and 5 Mar 1987, publishing gradation lists accordingly. In 1993 it issued a note reversing this, placing the non‑graduates above the graduates, allegedly misinterpreting Rule 14 of the 1969 Recruitment Rules. The High Court quashed the 1993 order and upheld the graduates' seniority; the appellants challenged this decision. The Supreme Court held that seniority, once settled, cannot be unsettled, and that the 1993 order was a grave error contrary to Rules 14 (1969) and 22 (1974). Applying principles of statutory construction to avoid absurd results, the Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the inter‑se seniority between the 1979‑81 (non‑graduate) and 1980‑81 (graduate) batches should be determined as per the Rangers Recruitment Rules despite differing training durations and qualifications.
- Whether the State Government can lawfully unsettle seniority that had been settled by earlier orders and gradation lists.
- Interpretation of Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 (Rule 14) and 1974 (Rule 22) concerning seniority.
- Application of principles of statutory interpretation, including avoidance of absurd or unworkable constructions (ut res magis valeat quam pereat).
- Validity of the Government’s 29 Sept 1993 note altering seniority.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 309 (proviso)
Subjects
seniorityservice lawstatutory interpretationRangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rulesinter‑se senioritycivil servicetraining periodrule constructionut res magis valeat quam pereatgovernment order
Judgment
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 485
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2439 of 2010)
MARCH 16, 2010
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]
SERVICE LAW:
Seniority ~ HELD: Is a civil right which has an important . c
and vital role to play in one's service career and is also
significant for good and sound administration - It is reiterated
· that seniority once settled, should not be unsettled - Rangers
(Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 -
Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment D
Examination) Rules 1974.
RANGERS (SUBORDINATE FOREST SERVICE)
RE<;RUITMENT RULES, 1969 - rr. 7, 10, 13 and 141
RANGERS (SUB ORD/NA TE FOREST SERVICE
RECRUITMENT EXAM/NATION) RULES 1974 - rr. 7, 8 (as E
amended in 1979), 18(as amended in 1983), 21 and 22:
Range Forest Officers in State of Gujarat - Seniority of
non-graduates (1979-81 batch) and graduates (1980-81
batch) - HELD: Government had rightly taken the decision F
deputing the non-graduates (1979-81 batch) to a two year
training course and graduates (1980-81 batch) to a one year
training course - Seniority of both the batches had been
rightly settled by orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987
placing graduates (1980-81batch) above non-graduates - G
(1979-81 batch) and the seniority so redetermined had
attained finality, but, the Government committed an error in
unsettling the seniority under its proceedings dated 29.9.1993
- There is no illegality in the judgment of the High court in
485 H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A quashing the order dated 29.9.1993 and upholding the
seniority of the candidates of 1980-81 batch over the
candidates of 1979-81 batch as had been determined as early
as on 12. 10. 1982 - Interpretation of statutes.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES:
B
Strict interpretation - HELD: Courts have to avoid a
construction of an enactment that leads to an unworkable,
inconsistent or impracticable results - In the instant case,
strict interpretation of r.10 of 1969 Rules and r.18 of 1974
C Rules was unworkable and literal interpretation would have
. resulted in absurd results - The decision taken by the
government in deputing the non-graduates (1979-81 batch)
to a two year training course and graduates (1980-81 batch)
to a one year training is in due compliance with r.10 of 1969
D Rules and r.18 of 1974 Rules and the seniority of the both
batches has been rightly pettled by orders dated 12.10.1982
and 5.3.1987 - Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service)
Recruitment Rules, 1969 - Ranger (Subordinate Forest
Service Recruitment Examination) Rules 1974- Maxim 'ut res
E magis valeat quam pereat'.
Range Forest Officers in the State of Gujarat were
selected under two different sets of Rules, namely,
Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) ~ecruitment Rules,
1969 and Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service
F Recruitment Examination) Rules 1974. Earlier, the
educational qualification for the post under both the Rules
was Intermediate pass and the selected candidates were
deputed to a two year training course in Forest Rangers
Colleges. Their seniority was determined on the basis of
G the marks obtained in the final examination in the Forest
Rangers College. With the amendment in r.8(1) of the 1974
Rules in 1979, educational qualification was substituted
to graduation and further in the year 1983 two year
training course provided in r.18 of 1974 Rules was
H
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 487
AND ORS.
reduced to one year. The graduate candidates (1980-81 A
batch), the respondents, were deputed to one year
training course which they completed in February 1981
and they were appointed as Range Forest Officers in
March 1981; whereas the non-graduates (1979-81 batch),
the appellants, though selected earlier than the B
respondents, completed their two year training course
after the graduates of 1980-81 batch had been appointed,
and, as such, they were appointed Range Forest Officers
later. When the issue of seniority was raised by the
appellants, the Government, by its communication dated c
12.10.1982 held that graduates (1980-81 batch) would
rank senior to the non-graduates (1979-81 batch), and the
gradation list was published accordingly in the year 1983.
This position was again reiterated by the Government by
its communication dated 5.3.1987. In the provisional D
gradation list published in the year 1989 also the
respondents were shown above the appellants. However,
the Government in its proceedings dated 29.9.1993 held
that non-graduates (19-79-81 batch) would rank senior to
graduates (1980-81 batch). The writ petition of the
respondents was dismissed by the single Judge, but the E
Division Bench ofthe High Court allowed their LP.A.
Aggrieved, the non-graduates of the 1979-81 batch filed
the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court F
HELD: 1.1. Seniority is a civil right which has an
important and vital role to play in one's service career.
Seniority once settled is decisive'in the upward march in
one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and G
assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It
instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands
respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor
for good and sound administration. Courts have been
r,epeating the ratio that the seniority once sett~ed, shall not H
<
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 3 S.C.R.
A be unsettled. In the instant case, the government had
rightly settled the seniority by orders dated 12.10.1982
and 5.3.1987 and the gradation lists were also rightly
published, but by its proceedings dated 29.9.1993, the
Government committed a grave error in unsettling the
B inter se seniority of the graduates and non- graduates
which had been settled as early as in the year 1982. (Para
23 and 25] (505-B; 505-C-E]
Union of India and Another v. S.K. Goel and Others 2007
c (2) SCR 432 = (2007) 14 sec 641, T.R. Kapoor v. State of
Haryana 1989 (3) SCR 1079 = (1989) 4 SCC 71, Bimlesh
Tanwar v. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) SCR 757 =. (2003) 5
sec 604, relied on.
G.P. Doval vs. Chief Secretary Government of U.P. 1985
D (1) SCR 70 =(1984) 4 SCC 329; Prabhakar and Others vs.
State of.Maharashtra And Others, 1976 (3) SCR 315 =
(1976) 2 SCC 890, and G: Deendayalan vs. Union of India
& Ors 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 377 = (1997) 2 SCC 638; R.S.
Ajara vs. State of Gujarat (1997) 3 SCC 641', held
E inapplicable.
1.2. When the rules were framed, perhaps only two
Government run colleges, namely, the ·Northern Forest
Rangers College, Dehradun, and the Southern Forest
Rangers College Coimbatore, were conducting the
F training courses, the duration of Which was two years and
the qualification prescribed was pass in intermediate
examination. Later those colleges changed their course
duration to an integrated one year course. Necessary
amendments, however, were not carried out in r.10 of
G Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules,
1969 or r.18 of Ranger (Subordinate Forest Service
Recruitment Examination) Rules 1974 pointing out in
which College the candidates with intermediate
'qualification had to undergo training. Before 1980-81
H
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 489
AND ORS.
batch was selected, r. 8 of the 1974 Rules was amended A
and the minimum educational qualification was fixed as
graduation. In the circumstances, the Government took
a conscious decision that non-graduates of 1979-81
batch would undergo two year training course, and the
graduates of 1980-81 batch would undergo the one year B
training course since candidates with lesser qualification
required thorough training compared to the candidates
with higher qualification. Such a decision was taken,
evidently due to the reason that strict interpretation of
r.10 of 1969 Rules and r.18 of 1974 Rules was c
unworkable. Later, by Notification dated 25th November,
1983, in r.18 of 1974 Rules, the period of two years for
training was substituted as one year, but necessary
amendments are yet to be carried out in r.10 of the 1969
Rules. [Para 23, 26] [506-D-H; 507-A-C] · D
1.3. Due to the basic difference in the educational
qualification between the 1979-81 and 1980-81 batches,
the Government took a conscious decision that it was not
proper to unsettle the settled seniority even if there was
delay in the appointment of non-graduates. This position E
was recognized in all the gradation lists published till
1.1.1989. Neither the Government order dated 12.10.1982
nor the gradation lists were challenged before any forum .
which had attained finality. [Para 23] [504-A-C]
F
1.4. The note dated 29.9.1993 stating that the
candidates of 1979-81 batch should be placed above the
candidates of 1980-81 batch was 'based on a
misinterpretation of r.14 of the 1969 Rules. Rule 14 of the
1969 Rules determines the inter-se seniority of the G
candidates of a particular batch and does not determine
the inter-stt seniority between two batches, whose
educational qualification, years of training and the date
of joining, etc. differ. Rule 14 of 1969 Rules and r. 22 of
the 1974 Rules also further re-emphasise that fact. Both
H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A the groups are governed by these rules in the matter of
their intra seniority. The note dated 29.09.1993 is,
therefore, contrary to r.14 of 1969 Rules and r.22 of the
1974 Rules. [Para 23] [504-E-G]
8 Praful/a Kumar Swain vs. Prakash Chandra Misra 1993
(1) SCR 241=1993 (suppl) 3 SCC 181; Pramod K. Pankaj
vs. State of Bihar 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 916 = (2004) 3 SCC
723; Bhey Ram Sharma vs. Haryana S.E.B., 1993 (2) Suppl.
SCR 219 = 1994 (supp) 1 SCC 276; K.R. Mudga/ vs. R.P.
C Singh 1986 (3) SCR 993 = (1986) 4 SCC 531, referred to
/
2. It is a well known rule of construction that the
provisions of a statute must be construed so as to ,give
them a sensible meaning. The legislature expects the
court to observe the maxim ut res magis valeat quam
D pereat (it is better for a thing to have effect than to be
made void). The principle also means that if the obvious
intention of the statute gives rise to obstacles in
implementation, the court must do its best to find ways
of overcoming those obstacles, so as to avoid absurd
E results. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of
statutes that a construction should not be put on a
statutory provision which would lead to manifest
absurdity, futility, palpable injustice and absurd
inconvenience or anomaly. The courts have to avoid a
F construction of an enactment that leads to an
unworkable, inconsistent or impracticable results, since
such a situatioA is unlikely to have been envisaged by
the rule making authority, which also expects rule framed
by it to be made workable and never visualises absurd
G results. There is, therefore, no illegality in the judgment
of the. High court in quashing the order dated 29th
September, 1993 and upholding the seniority of the
candidates of 1980-81 batch over the candidates of 1979-
81 batch. [Para 27, 32 and 33] [507-F-H; 508-A; 509-C-D;
H 509-F]
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 491
AND ORS.
Andhra Bank v. 8. Satyanarayana 2004 (2) SCR 304 = A
(2004) 2 SCC, 657; tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs.
State of Assam & Ors. 1989 (2) SCR 544 = (1989) 3 SCC,
709; Madhav Rao, Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India 1971
(3) SCR 9 = (1971) 1 SCC 85; Union of India v. B.S. Agarwal
1997(4) Suppl. SCR 327 = (1997) 8 SCC 89, Paradise B
Printers v. Union .Territory of Chandigarh 1988 (2) SCR 157 =
(1988) 1 sec 440, referred to.
R. (on the application of Edition First Power Ltd.) v.
Central Valuation Officer and another (2003) UKHL 20(2003) C
4 ALL ER 209, referred to;
Case Law Reference:
2007 (2) SCR 432 relied on para 25
1989 (3) SCR 1079 relied on para 25 .D
· 2003 (2) SCR 757 relied on para 25
1985 (1) SCR held inapplicable para 21
1976 (3) SCR. 315 held inapplicable para 21 E
1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 377 held inapplicable para 21
1993 (1) SCR 241 referred to para 23
2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 916 referred to para 23
F
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 219 referred to para 23
1986 (3) SCR 993 referred to para 23
(2003) UKHL
20 (2003) 4 ALL ER 209 referred to ·para 28
G
2004 (2) SCR 304 referred to para 29
1989 (2) SCR referred to para 30
1971 (3) SCR 9 referred to para 31
H
'
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 327 referred to para 31
1988 (2) SCR 157 referred to para 31
CIVIL APPELLATE JURlso&.~tON : Civil Appeal No.
2439 of 2010. '· ·--._ ·
0
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.6.2006 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Letters Patent Appeal No.
1634 of 1999.
D.A. Dave, Sanjoy Ghose, Anitha Shenoy, Yashovardhan
C for the Appellants.
. Hemanitka Wahi, Somanath Padhan, D.N .. Ray, P.O.
·~·:·
Sharma Huzefa Ahmadi, Chetan Pandya, Pradhuman Gohil,
Vikash Singh, S. Hari Haran, Taruna Singh, Milind Kumar for
D the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted .
•. E 2. The controversy in this case is with regard to the inter-
se seniority between two batches of direct recruits Range
Forest Officers viz., 1979-81 batch (non-graduates) and 1980-
81 batch (graduates) of the Subordinate Forest Services of the
State of Gujarat and their further promotion to the post of
Assistant Conservator of Forests.
3. The recruitment to the posts of Rangers in the
Subordinate Forest Services is governed by the Rangers
(Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 (in short
'1969 Rules') which was framed by the Government of Gujarat
G in exercise of its powers conferred under the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India. Appointment to the post of
Rangers is made either by way of promotion from the post of
.. Forester or by direct selection. Rule 3 of the 1969 Rules
stipulated that a candidate to be eligible for appointment by
..;"!"-
•'.. .....,
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 493
AND ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
direct selection should possess a minimum educational A
qualification of intermediate examination of any recognized
university or its equivalent examination comprising of subjects
'Specified therein. Rule 7 lays down that the candidates have
to undergo· a selection process consisting of a written test and
interview. Rule 10 states that the. finally selected candidates B
have to undergo the Rangers course which reads as follows:-
"The candidate finally selected will be required to
undergo training for the Rangers Course at the Northern
Forest Rangers College, Dehradun or Southern Forest
Rangers College, Coimbatore for a period of two years:
c
4. Rule 11 says that the State Government would bear the
costs for the training. and that during the period of training the
candidate shall receive stipend, emoluments and other
allowances if any, as fixed by the Government from time to time. D
Rule 13 deals with appointment, which reads as follows:-
"Onsuccessful completion of the Training Course from the
Ranger's College, the cendidate shall be appointed as a
Ranger if he passes with higher standard certificate and
E
.as a Forester if he passes with lower standard certificate."
5. Rule 14 deals with seniority which states that the
seniority of Rangers shall be governed by the respective ranks ·
in the final examination, irrespective of the date of joining the
service. F
.. 6. The Government of Gujarat, in exercise of its powers
conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
of India framed the Ranger (Subordinate 'Forest Service
Recruitment Examination) Rules 1974 (in short '1974 Rules). G
Rufe 7 deals with the eligibility of the candidate for appointment
to the post of Rangers. Rule 8 stipulated that a candidate should
possess the minimum educational qualification of intermediate
examina.tion from a recognised university in any of the subjects
mentioned therein for admission to the competition examination
H
. 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A for recruitment to the post of Rangers. The examination
conducted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission ('GPSC'
in short) followed by a viva-voce and personality test. GPSC
has to publish in the Gujarat Govt. Gazette the names of the
candidates who qualify for the posts in the serial orders based ·
B on the total marks obtained by the candidates and they are
required to undergo practical training in the forest for a period
of eight weeks. Rule 18 required the candidates to undergo
training for the Rangers Course at the Northern Forest Range
College, Dehradun, or Southern Forest College, Coimbatore
.cfor a period of two years and that the ~overnment would bear
the cost Rule 18 reads as follows:-
Rule-18:- The candidate shall during the period of.
practical training, receive stipend and traveling allowances
as the Government may fix from time to time: They shall
D also be required to undergo training for the Rangers ·
Course at the Northern Forest College, Dehradun or
southern Forest College, Coimbatore for a period of two
. years."
E · 7. Rule 21 states that on successful completion of the
training course from the Rangers College, the candidate shall
· be appointed as a Ranger if he passes with higher standard
certificate and as a Forester, if he passes with lower standard
certificate. Rule 22 deals with.seniority of Rangers which says
F that the seniority of the Rangers shall be governed by their
respective qmks in the final examination at the Rangers College
irrespective of the date of joining the service.
B. 1974 .Rules were later amended by the Government of
Gujarat invoking the powers conferred under which the proviso
G to Article 309 of the Constitution vide Rangers (Subordinate
forest Service Recruitment Examination (Amendment Rules)
1979, (in short '1979 Rules):Clause 1 of Rule 8 was substituted
by stating that a candidate must possess a bachelor's degree
in Science or Agriculture of any university recognized by the
H Government of Gujarat instead of the passing the intermediate
j~f; ..
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 495
AND ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
examination so as to be eligible for writing the competitive A
examination conducted by the GPSC for recruitment to the post
of Rangers. Rule 18 of the 1974 Rules was also later amended
by the Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) examination
Rules, 1983 (in short '1983 Rules) on 25th November, 1983,
substituting the period of two years as one year training. B
9. The Government of India had vide its letter No.3-42/77-
FRY-1 dated 29th May, 1979 announced the duration of the
courses at various central Rangers Colleges and State Forest
Rangers Colleges. Northern Forest Rangers College,
Dehradun, U.P., Central Forest Rangers College, Chandrapur, C
Maharashtra and Southern Forest Rangers College,
Coimbatore etc. had since then, discontinued its two years
course to one year integrated course, while Forest Rangers
College, Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh and Eastern Forest
Rangers College Furseong, West Bengal Rangers College, D
Rajpipla, SFS. College Burnihat, Meghalaya, etc. continued with
course of two years duration. Above facts would indicate that
different colleges followed their own course structures,
curriculum and time schedule for successful completion of
training imparted in their respective colleges. E
10. Appellants herein (non-graduates) were selected to the
post of Ranger Forest O"fficer by the GPSC in accordance with
the 1969 and 1974 Rules and were deputed for training at the
Rangers College Rajpipla, where the training course was of two F
years duration and other candidates of the same batch were
sent for training to some other college where also the training
course was of two years duration. In short all the non-graduates
of 1979-81 batch were deputed for training to the colleges
conducting courses of two years duration since the colleges G
mentioned in the rules had done away with the courses of two
years duration to one year integrated course. Appellants
completed the training course, the duration of which was two
years in the month of March, 1981 and were appointed as
Rangers in the Subordinate Service in the month of April, 1981.
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A 11. The R~spondents herein (graduates) selected by the
GPSC in_ the year 1979 were sel'")t for training at CFRC,
Chandrapur, where the course duration was of one year. After
successfully completing the course in February, 1981 they
were appointed to the post of Forest Rangers in the month of
B March, 1981. Non graduates though selected earlier had to
undergo two years training and hence could join service only .
after the graduates joined service, since they had undergone
the integrated course of the duration of which was one year.
12. The controversy in this case as we have indicated is
C with regard·to the inter-se seniority betwee.n the graduates of''
(1980-81 batch) who had successfully completed the training
course earlier, and the non-graduates of (1979-81 batch) who
had also successfully completed the course later for the post
of Forest Rangers and also their further pro.motion to the post
· D of Assistant Conservator of Forests. Rule 13 of 1969 Rules
stipulates that on successful completion of the training course
from the Rangers College, a candidate shall be appointed as
Ranger if he passes the higher standard certificate. Rule 14 of
1969 Rules and Rule 22 of 1974 Rules state that the seniority
. E of Rangers shall be governed by their respective ranks in the
final examination irrespective of the dates of joining the service.
Both the non-graduates of 1979-81 batch as well as the
graduates of 1980-81 batch ar~ governed by the above
mentioned Rules. with regard to their inter-se seniority.
F (:·
13. The non-graduates (1979-80 batch) who had to
undergo training for two years at Gujarat Forest Rangers'
• College, RajP.ipla, submitted representation in February 1981
to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Vadodara claiming seniority
G over (1980-81 batch) ctontending that they could join service late
not due to their fault, but due to the fact that they had to undergo
two years training cotlfse while the candidates of 1980-81 batch
··were permitted to take an integrated Training course the
duration of which was one year, with the result that they could
join Service earlier than the (1979-81 batch) which, according
H
H.S. VANl<ANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 497
AND ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
to them, was illegal and discriminatory and had adversely
affected their seniority in service . Representations received
from the non-graduates were forwarded by the Chief
Conservator of forest, with his proposal for favourable
consideration but was however turned down by the Government
(Agriculture and Forest) Department, vide its communication to B
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest dated 12.10.1982,
which reads as follows:-
"With reference to your letter No.EST-3A-7409-A-2075
dated 03.08.82 of above cited subject, it is to inform you C
that those who have given two years of training, their
minimum e_ducational qualification is intermediate, while
the minimum educational qualification for those who have
given one year training is degree of B.Sc, accordingly there
is basic difference between both trainees. It is obvious that
those who have less qualification required through training. D
Therefore it is not proper to change seniority because of
late appointment due to long training, so kindly note that
your proposal is not acceptable."
14. The office of the Chief Conservator of Forest later E
published a gradation list of Range Forest Officers, as it stood
on 1st January, 1£ 83 in which the respondents were shown as
1
seniors to the appellants. After two years, the first appellant
herein submitted yet another representation on 22.10.1985 to
the Deputy Conservator of Forest claiming seniority over the F
1980-81 batch. But a fresh gradation list of Range Forest
Officers as it stood on 1st January, 1986 was published by the
Department wherein also the respondents (1980-81 batch) were
shown as seniors to the appellants.
. 15. The Chief Conservator of Forests again rejected the G
first appellant's representation vide his communication dated
05.03.1987 referring to the earlier communication of the
Government dated 12th January, 1982 stating that
undergraduates have to undergo a more intensive training
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A compared to graduates. The operative portion of the order
reads as follows:-
".... With regard to the above it is stated that by the State
Government, Agricult1:Jre Department, Gandhinagar, letter
No:Kra/FST/1071/81475/VA, dated 12.10.1982 it has
B
been decided that the minimum educational qualification
·Of those who were given two years trainee is Intermediates
whereas those who are given one year's training their
minimum educational qualification is B.Sc degree. Thus
there is basic difference between both the trainees. Thus
c more intensive training is required to be given to those
whose educational qualification is less. Therefore, for
longer training the appointment was made late. Therefore,
it has not been found proper to make any change in the
seniority. This means that the Ranger Forest Officers of
D 1980-81 Rangers Course were given appointment first (in
point of time) on completion of training on 28th February,
1981, whereas the training of Range Forest Officers of
1979-81 Rangers Course was completed on 31st March,
1981 and therefore, they were given appointments as
E Ranger Forest Officers subsequently, and therefore, they
will not be getting seniority over the Range Forest Officers
of the year 1980-81, as decided by the Government.
Therefore, the seniority of Shri Vankani in gradation list of
1983 is at proper place in view of the said decision."
F
16. Later, a provisional gradation list of Range Forest
Officers as it stood on 01.01.1989 was published by the
Department wherein also the respondents were shown as
seniors to the appellants. Above mentioned gradation lists and
G the various orders issued by the Government/ Department were
riever challenged by the appellants before any forum. The first
appellant, and others however, submitted yet another
representation on 17.05.1992 to the Secretary Forest and
Environment department and an Under Secretary in the Forest
and Environment Department had sent a note No.VNM/4992/
H
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 499
AND ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
A-225/61 dated 29.09.1993 to the Principal Chief Conservator A
of Forest stating that the following decision has been taken in
consultation with the General Administrative Department which
reads as follows:-
".... Selection of Range Forest Officer of 1979-81 batch is
8
as per the provision of Recruitment Rules of 1969. While
selection of candidates or thereafter, is as per amended
Recruitment Rules thereafter. Therefore, selectibn of
candidates of 1979-81 batch is earlier as per Recruitment
Rules of 1969. Generally, candidates selected directly by C
the Gujarat Public Service Commission are arranged
serially from the beginning as recommended by the
Commission. But as per provision 14 of the Rangers
Recruitment Rules 1969 for seniority of Range Forest
Officer are not arranged from the date of joining, but
arranged as per Rank of Final Examination of Rangers. D
The provision 14 of Rangers Recruitment Rules 1969 is
to decide internal seniority of the concerned batch only,
according t6 that Range Forest Officer candidates of
1979-81 batch should be placed above candidates of
1980-81 batch in the seniority list." E
17. Noticing that U1e above mentioned order would unsettle
the settled seniority the respondents preferred a representation
dated 19.10.1993 before the Chief Conservator of Forest
reminding that similar representations were earlier rejected and F
there was no justification in submitting such a note and that too
without giving them an opportunity of being heard.
18. The respondents aggrieved by the abo·1e mentioned
note preferred a Writ Petition SCA 449 of 1994 before the
Gujarat High Court and the writ petition was heard along with . G
three other writ petitions and a common judgment was
delivered by the learned single judge of that Court on
27.10.1989. The learned single judge however dismissed the
writ petitibn holding that though the persons selected in the
1980-81 batch were given training for a shorter perioQ, on H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A account of their higher qualification, that would not give the
officers in the subsequent and previous batches any ground for
claiming higher seniority. The respondents herein aggrieved by
the above judgment had preferred an LPA No.1634 of 1999
which was allowed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High
B Court holding that the respondents herein are entitled to
seniority from the date of their appointment after completing the
Rangers Course with higher standard certificate and that their
inter-se seniority would be governed by Rule 22 of the 1974
Rules. Further, it was also held that the contesting respondents
c (appellants herein) would take their seniority from the date of
their appointment as Rangers after completing the Rangers
Course with higher standard certificate and that their inter-se
seniority would also be governed by Rule 22 of the 1974 Rules.
The impugned order dated 29th September, 1993 issued by
. I
0 the Government was also quashed. Aggrieved by the above
judgment the appellants have come up with this appeal, with
leave to appeal.
19. We find while the SLP was pending, the Government
passed a resolution on 19.07.2007 treating the training period
E also for the purpose of seniority, increment and pension which
according to the respondents was to get over, the judgment of
the .Division Bench. A Special Civil Application No.5297 of
2009 was preferred by one Assistant Conservator of Forest
before the Gujarat High Court for implementing the Government
F Resolution dated 19.07.2007 so as to get further promotion as
Deputy Conservator of Forest and a Writ Petition SCA No.7488
of 2009 was preferred by an Assistant Conservator of Forest
for a writ of certiorari to quash the above mentioned resolution.
Both the SCAs were heard by the learned single judge of the
G Gujarat High Court and a common judgment was delivered on
08.09.2009. Learned single judge noticed that the Government
Resolution dated 19.07.2007 was directly in conflict with 1974
Rules as amended in the year 1979. Learned Single judge,
therefore, dismissed the SCA No.5297 of 2009 and allowed
H the SCA No.7488 of 2009 by quashing the Government
. '
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 501
AND ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Resolution dated 19.07.2007. State Government it seen has A
accepted the above mentioned judgment and passed a
Resolution on 19th January, 2010 which reads as follows:-
"Above matter was urider consideration of the Government
and after careful consideration, the Government resolves 8
that in the Resolution of even no. dated 19.07.2007 that
the duration from the training period up to the result of the
exam, which was to be considered as continuous for the
purpose of seniority who have cleared the post -training
examination within the prescribed trial are hereby, revoked. C
Along with this the provisions of resolution dated
19.07.2009 contained in paragraph no.2 are also revoked.
The provisions of considering the service as continuous
for the purpose of increment and pension, shall retain as
they are.
D
The issue w.ith the concurrence of general
administration department vide its notes dated 07.01.2010
on this Department, file of even number.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat" E
20. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants, referred extensively to the provisions of 1969.
Rules, 1974 Rules, and also to the Notification dated 15th
September, 1979, amending the 1974 Rules and also 1983
Rules, amending Rule 18 substituting one year instead of two F
years for completing the Rangers course. Learned counsel
submitted that the 1969 Rules, has stipulated two years' training
under Rule 10 which still stands un-amended. Learned counsel
submitted without while amending the 1969 Rules, the State
Government was not justified in reducing the period of training G
to one year instead of two years for graduates. Learned
counsel submitted that the Government has committed a grave
error in revoking the Resolution dated 19th January, 2007 by
not reckoning the training period for the purpose of seniority.
Learned cbunsel further submitted that when the appellants and H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A the respondents were selected in,the year 1979 and 1980 the
rule stipulated two years training and hence lhere was no
justification in reducing the training period to one year, so far
as the respondents are concerned. Learned counsel submitted
that the training period ought to have been reckoned for the
B purpose of seniority, increment,' pay and pension and the
Government was not justified in revoking the Resolution dated
19.7.2007, by another Notification dated 15th January, 2010.
while the matter was pending before this Court.
21. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the
C Government was justified in issuing the Note dated 29.9.1993
holding that the candidates of 1979~81 batch should be placed
above the candidates of 1980-81 batch·in the seniority list and
that the continuous officiation should reckon from the date of
commencement of the training and not from the date of
D appointment. In support of his contention, learned counsel
referred to the judgment of this Court in G.P. Doval vs. Chief
Secretary Government of U.P. (1984) 4 SCC, 329. Reference
was also made the judgment of this Court in Prabhakar and
Others vs. State of Maharashtra And Others, (1976) 2 SCC
E 890, and G. Deendayalan vs. Union· of India & Ors. (1997) 2
sec 638. Learned counsel also referr~d to the judgment of this
Court in R.S. Ajara vs. State of Gujarat, (1997) 3 SCC 641
and the rules should not be interpreted to prohibit counting the
period of.training for the purpose bf seniority.
F
22. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, submitted there is no illegality in the impugned
judgment warranting interference by this Court under Article 136
of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that the
G Government has committed a grave error in unsettling the
seniority in the year 1993 which was settled in the year 1982.
The Government had clearly indicated that two years' training
was given to those persons who were non-graduates and one
year training was given to the persons who were graduates and
there was a basic difference between both the batches of
H
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 503
AND ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
trainees in respect of their educational qualifications. Learned A
counsel submitted that Government had rightly held that
extensive training was required in the case of those who had
lesser qualification and hence there was no illegality in the
fixation of seniority in the various gradation lists published.
Learned counsel submitted that it was due to the pressure B
exerted by the appellants, a note was put up· by the Under
Secretary, Forest and Environment Department to the Chief
Conservator of Forest for unsettling the seniority which was
settled years back. Learned counsel submitted that though the
Government had tried to overcome the judgment of the Division C
Bench by issuing a Resolution on 19.7.2007, it was
subsequently revoked vide order dated 15.01.2010, following
the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in SCA No.7488 of
2009. Referring to 1969- Rules, 1974 Rules etc. learned
counsel submitted that inter se seniority between both the D
batches has to be reckoned from the date of appointment and
not from the date of selection or from the date of
commencement of the training. Learned counsel referred the
Judgment of the Apex Court in Prafulla Kumar Swain vs.
Prakash Chandra Misra, 1993 (suppl) 3 SCC 181; Pramod
K. Pankaj vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 3 SCC 723; Bhey Ram E
Sharma vs. Haryana S.E.B.,, 1994 (supp) 1 SCC 276.
Reference was also made on the decision of Apex Court in K.R.
Mudga/ vs. R.P. Singh (1986) 4 SCC 531. Ms. Hemantika
Wahi, learned counsel for the respondents also endorsed the
view of the respondents and also referred to the counter F
affidavit filed by the State Government in support of their stand.
23. We are of the view that the Government has committed
a grave error in unsettling the inter se seniority of the graduates
and non-graduates which was settled as early as in the year G
1982. The State Government in its letter dated 12.10.1982 had
taken the view that two years' training was imparted to non-
g raduates of 1979-81 batch and one year training was
imparted only to graduates of 1980-81 batch since candidates
H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2010) 3 S.C.R.
A with lesser qualification required thorough training compared
to the candidates with higher qualification. Due to this basic
difference in the educational qualification between the 1979-
81 and 1980-81 batches, the Government took a consci.ous
decision that it was not proper to unsettle the settled seniority
8 even if there was delay in the appointment of non-graduates.
Subsequent to that decision, three gradation lists were
published, recognizing the seniority of the respondents over the
appellants. Neither the Government order dated 12.10.1982 nor
the Gradation lists were challenged before any forum which in
our view had attained finality. After a period of two years yet
C_ another representation was submitted which was rejected by
the Conservator of Forests vide his communication dated
5.3.1987 referring to the earlier Government order dated
12.01.1982. Fresh gradation list was published on 1.1.1989
where also respondent's seniority· was recognized.
D Representations dated 23.05.1989 and 03.05.1990 preferred
·by the appellants were also not favourably considered by the
Government or the Chief Conservator of Forests. The Under
Secretary of the Forest and Environment-Department had
however put up a note on 29.09.1993 evidently under pressure
E from the candidates of the 1979-81 batch misinterpreting rule
14 of the 1969 Rules, stating the candidates of 1979-81 batch
should be placed above the candidates of 1980-81 batch. Rule ·
14 of the Rules·determines the inter se seniority of the
candidates of a particular batch and does not determine the
F inter-se seniority between two batches, whose educational
qualification, years of training and the date of joining, etc. differ.
Rule 14 of 1969 Rules and Rule 22 of 1974 Rules also further
re-emphasise that fact. The note put up by the Under Secretary
on 29.09.1993 is, therefore, contrary to Rule 14 of 1969 Rules.
G and Rule 22 of the 1974 Rules.
24. 1969, 1974, and 1979 Rules clearly stipulate how the
seniority has to be reckoned. Rule 14 of 1969 Rules and 22 of
1974 Rules are in pari materia which states that seniority of
H the Rangers shall be· governed by their respective ranks in the
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 505
AND ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
final examination at the Rangers College irrespective of their A
joining the service and on successful completion of the training
course the candidates shall be appointed as Rangers if they
pass with higher standard certificate. Both the groups are
governed by these rules in the matter of their intra seniority and
the government had rightly settled the seniority vide orders dated · B
12.10.1982 and 05.03.1987 and the gradation lists were also
rightly published. The Government in our view have committed
a grave error in unsettling the settled seniority vide its
proceedings dated 29.9.1993.
25. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital
c
role to play in one's service career. Future promotion of a
Government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the
basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority etc. Seniority
once settled is decisive in the upward march in one's chosen
work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts D
the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads
harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is
a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the
settled seniority at the instance of one's junior in service is
unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility E
among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do
quality work might be lost. Such a situation may drive the
parties to approach the administration for resolution of that
acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lot of
time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties F
to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals
both private and Government, driving the parties to acute
penury. It is well known that salary they earn, may not match the
litigation expenses and professional fees and may at times
drive the parties to other sources of money making, including G
corruption. Public money is also being spent by the Government
to defend th'9ir otherwise untenable stand. Further it also
consumes lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest
resulting in constant bitterness among parties at the cost of
sound administration affecting public interest. Courts are H .
506 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R
A repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be
unsettled. but the men in power often violate that ratio for
extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental
action, Legal principles have. been reiterated by this Court in
. Union of India and Another v. S.K. Goel and Others (2007)
B 14 SOC 641, T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana ( 1989) 4 SCC
71, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604.
In View o.f.the settled law the decisions cited by the appellants
in G.P. Doval's case (supra), Prabhakar and Others case, G.
Deendayalan, R. S. Ajara are not applicable to the facts of the
c case.
26. We will now examine whateller it is possible to strictly
enforce Rule 10of1969 Rules and Rule 18 of1974 Rules. Rule
making authority wanted the finally selected candidates to
und.ergo training in the Northern Forest Rangers College,
0 Dehradun, or the Southern Forest Rangers College
Coimbatore, for a period of two years. When the rules were
framed, perhaps only those Government run colleges alone
. would have been conducting those courses, the duration of .
which were two years and the qualification prescribed was pass
E in intermediate examination. Later those colleges changed their
course duration to an integrated one year course. Rule 10 of
1969 Rules, 18 of 1974 Rules were therefore found to be
unworkable. In the year 1979, Rule 8 of 1974 Rules was
amended .a!)d the minimum educational qualification was fixed
F as graduation. Necessary amendments, however, were not
carried out in Rule 10of1969 Rules or Rule 18of1974 Rules
pointing out in which college the candidate with intermediate
qualification had to undergo training, though seldom we find the
rule making authority specifies the names of the colleges where .
G the candidates have to undergo their training. Rules were
therefore, found to be unworkable and Government was in an
obscure situation, andlherefore Government took a conscious.
decision that the candidates of 1979-81 batch with intermediate
qualification would undergo the training, the duration of which
.H was two years and the candidates of -1980-81 batch with
H.S. V~NKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 507
AND ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
graduation as qualification would undergo the course, the A
duration of which was one year. Such a decision was taken, .
evidently due to the reason that Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule
18of1974 Rules were found to be unworkable. Even now 1969 .
Rules, 1974 Rules refer to NFR College, Dehradun and South
FRC Coimbatore, though those colleges had done away .with B
two years course years back but necessary amendments are
yet to be carried out in those Rules. Before 1980-81 batch was
selected the educational qualification was amended, but in Rule
18, the period of two years was substituted as one year only
vide Notification dated 25th November, 1983 and necessary c
amendments are yet to be carried out in Rule 10 of 1969 Rules.
27. Strict interpretation of Rule 10of1969 Rules and Rul~
18 of 1974 Rules was unworkable and literal interpretation
woul~ have resulted in absurd results. When the educational
qualification prescribed was pass .in intermediate examination, D
the legislature wanted the candidates to undergo training for
two years. But, when the higher educational qualification of
graduation· was prescribed the statute was silent as to the
period of training the candidates have to undergo. Even the non-
graduates were not sent for training in the colleges mentioned E
. in the Rules but were sent to some other colleges where the
duration of course was two years and the candidates of 1980-
81 batch was sent for training to the colleges which conducted
course of one. year duration. Such a course was adopted, since
the rules were found to be unworkable. It is a ~II known Rule F
of construction that the provisions of a statute must be construed
· so as to give them a sensible meaning. The legislature expects
the court to observe the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat
a
(it is better for thing to have ~ffect than to be made void).
Principle also means that if the obvious intention of the statute G
gives rise to obstacles in implementation, the court must do its
best to find ways of overcoming those obstacles, so as to avoid
absurd results. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of
statutes that a construction should not be put on a statutory
provision which would lead to manifest ab~urdity, fut.ility, H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.
A palpable injustice and absurd inconvenience or anomaly.
28. In this connection reference may be made to the
judgment in R. (on the application of Edition First Power Ltd)
v. Central Valuation Officer and another (2003)UKHL
20(2003) 4 ALL ER 209 at (116),(117), wherein Lord Millett
8
said:-
"The court will presume that Parliament did not intend
a statute to have consequences which are objectionable
or undesirable; or absurd; or unworkable or impracticable;
c or merely inconvenient; or anomalous or illogical; or futile
or pointless. But the strength of these presumptions
depends on the degree to which a particular construction
produces an unreasonable result. The more unreasonable
a result, the less likely it is that Parliament intended it.. ... "
D
29. Reference may also be made in the Judgment in
Andhra Bank v. B. Satyanarayana (2004) 2 SCC, 657,
wherein this Court has held:-
"A machinery provision, it is trite, must be construed
E in such a manner so as to make it workable having regard
to the doctrine" ut res magis valeat quam pereat".
30. In Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. State of
Assam & Ors. (1989) 3 SCC, 709, this Court held as follows:-
F
"The courts strongly lean against any construction which
tends to reduce a statute to futility. The provision of a
statute must be so construed as to make it effective and
operative, on the principle "ut res magis valent quam
pereat". It is, no doubt, true that if a statute is absolutely
G vague and its language wholly intractable and absolutely
meaningless, the statute could be declared void for
vagueness. This is not in judicial review by testing the law
for arbitrariness or unreasonableness under Article 14; but
what a court of construction, dealing with the language of
H a statute, does in order to ascertain from, and accord to,
H.S. VANKANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 509
AND ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
.
the statute the meaning and purpose which. the legislature A
intended for it."
31. Reference may also be made to the decision in
Madhav Rao, Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971) 1 ·
SCC 85, Union of India v. B.S. Agarwal (1997) 8 SCC 89, B
Paradise Printers v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1988) 1
sec 440.
32. The above legal principles clearly indicate that the
courts have to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads
to an unworkable, inconsistent or impracticable results, since C
such a situation is unl(kely to have been envisaged by the Rule
making authority. Rule ·making authority also expects rule
framed by it to be made workable and never"visualises absurd
results. The decision taken by the government in deputing the
non-graduates (1979-81 batch) to a two year training course D
and graduates (1980-81 batch) to a one year training is in due
compliance with Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of 1974
Rules and the seniority of the both batches has been rightly
settled vide orders dated 12.10. 1982 and 5. 3.1987 and the
government has committed an error in unsettling the seniority E
under its proceedings dated 29th September, 1993.
33. We, therefore, find no illegality in the judgment of the
High court in quashing the order dated 29th September, 1993
and upholding the seniority of the candidates of 1980-81 batch
F
over the candidates of 1979-81 batch.
34. Appeal therefore lacks merits, and the same is
accordingly dismissed. ·
R.P. Appeal dismissed. G
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search