Holding

Because the 1981 Rules are silent on seniority, the State Government could validly fix seniority by the 1992 resolution, which does not violate the Rules or impair vested rights.

Summary

The case concerned the fixation of seniority for Assistant Conservators of Forests recruited directly in Gujarat. The 1981 Recruitment Rules dealt only with recruitment and appointment and were silent on seniority. The Gujarat Government issued a 1992 resolution treating the two‑year training period as part of service for seniority purposes. The High Court had struck down that resolution, but the Supreme Court held that, since the Rules did not prescribe any seniority principle, the Government was free to lay down such a principle by administrative order. The resolution did not alter any vested rights because no final seniority list had been issued before it. Consequently, the earlier seniority lists and the 1989 select list were invalid, and the 1992 resolution and the revised seniority list were upheld.

Issues considered

The 1981 Assistant Conservator of Forests Recruitment Rules contain any provision on fixation of seniority.
Whether the 1992 Government resolution treating training period as service for seniority is inconsistent with the 1981 Rules.
Whether the resolution impairs vested rights of promotee officers by retrospective effect.

Subjects

seniorityrecruitment rulesservice lawadministrative ordervested rightspromotiontraining periodGujarat Forest Service

Judgment

R.S. AJARA AND ORS. ETC. A

-
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

MARCH 3, 1997

[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.1;. NANAVATI, JJ.] B

Service Law-c-Assistant Conser.valor of Forests (Gujarat Forest Service
Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1981-lnter se seniority between the directly
recruited officers and the promotee officers -Rules, providing for appointment
and not for fixation of senion"ty-Govemment resolution of 1992 laying down C
the principle regardingfzxation of seniority-Held, the resolution was not l'iola-
tive of the Ru/es-Inclusion of training period for purposes of seniority-Held,
valid.

In the State of Gujarat, the Assistant Conservator ot· Forests
(Gujarat. forest Service Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1981 (the 1981 D
Rules) provided for appointment on the post of Assistant Conservator of
Forests by promotion from amongst persons working as Range Forest
Officers as well as by direct selection through, the Gujarat Public Service
Commission. Under the Rules, candidates selected for appointment by
direct selection are required to undergo a course in forestry for two years E
at an institution recognised by the Government and to obtain a diploma
or degree in Forestry. The Rules make provision for payment of tuition
fees, stipend and tour expenses for the said two years. After completion of
training the selected candidate is appointed as Assistant Conservator of
Forests on probation for a period of two years.
F
Deputy Conservator of Forests is the next higher post. Recruitment
to the said post is governed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Gujarat
Forests Service) Recruitment Rules, 1987. Under it, appointment to the
post is made by promotion from amongst persons holding the post of
Assistant Conservator of Forests and who have put in at least eight years G
service. The said period of eight years included the training period in the
Forest College.

The appellants in the present appeal were appointed on the post of
Assistant Conservator of Fores ts by direct selection in 1979. They were sent
for training-in 1980. After two years training they were appointed as H
597
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 2 S.C.R.

A As,sistant Conservator. of Forests in 1982. In 1987, the Gujarat government
issued a provisional seniority list for the cad.re of Assistant Consei;vator
of Forests. A final seniority list was issued in 1988. None of the lists
contained the names of the appellants.

In 1989, the government prepared a select list for the purpose of
-
B promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests. The list did not
include the ·names of the appellants. Another provisional seniority list
which was issued in 1990 included their names but their training period
of two years was excluded. A civil suit was filed by the direct recruits
seeking an injunction restraining the government from implementing the
C 1990 seniority list. In the said suit, the Gujarat government filed a purshis
agreeing in principle to take into consideration the training period af
direct recruits for the purpose of seniority.

The promotee officers filed special civil application in the High
Court praying it to restrain the government from revising the seniority list
D of 1988 and to direct it to make promotions on the basis of the s.elect list
of 1989. Another special civil application was filed by the directly recruited
officers for directing the government to consider the petitioners for promo-
tion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests and to quash the select
list of 1989. During the pendency of the said Writ Petitions the government
E passed the:impugned resolution dated January 31, 1992 and issued a
provisional seniority list on January 29, 1992. The promotee officers
challenged the resolution as well as the seniority list.

Both Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by a Single
Judge, holding that the 1981 Rules did not make any provision regarding
F fixation of seniority and that it was permissible for the government to lay
down the principle for fixation of seniority of direct recruits by the 1992
resolution. The provisional seniority list of 1987 and the final seniority list
of 1988 were declared invalid as they did not contain the names of direct
recruits who were selected in 1979. The select list that was prepared for
G the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests
was declared illegal. The 1992 resolution was upheld as valid. Quashing
the 1989 list, the Judge directed that a fresh list be prepared.

The Division Bench of the High Court, on appeal by the promotee
officers, reversed the judgment of the Single Judge and held that the 1992
H resolution violated the 1981 Rules. The final seniority list of 1988 was
R.S.AJARAv. STATE 599

upheld as valid. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, the directly recruited A

-
officers as well as the State of Gujarat preferred the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The Assistant Conservator of Forests (Gujarat Forest
Service Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1981 deal exclusively with the matter B
of recruitment and appointment on the post of Assistant Conservator of
Forests and do not make any mention with regard to fixation of seniority
of persons so appointed. The heading of the Rules also indicate that they
are recruitment rules. [609-B]

1.2. The 1981 Rules do not lay down any principle in the matter of C
fixation of seniority. Since the Rules are silent it was open to the State
Government to lay down the principle for fixation of seniority by an
administrative order. The 1992 resolution cannot be held to be bad on the
ground that it is inconsistent with the 1981 Rules. [610-G]
D
Prafulla Kumar v. Prakash Chandra Misra & Ors., [1993] Supp. 3 SCC
181, distinguished.

2. It cannot be disputed that normally, seniority is measured by the
length of service. But this does not preclude a different prescription
provided the constitutional tests are satisfied. There have been cases where E
the period of training prior to the date of appointment has been reckoned
for the purpose of seniority. [610-H, 611-A-B]

N.K. Chauhan & Ors. v. Staie of Gujarat & Ors., [1977] 1 SCR 1037;
Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1994] 2 SCC 622; Prabhakar &
Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1976] 2 SCC 890 and H. V. Pardasani F
& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 2 SCC 468, relied on.

... 3.1. The law is well settled that benefits accrued under the existing
rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect and
no statutory rule or administrative order can whittle down or destroy any G
right which has become crystallized and no rule can be framed under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution which affects or impairs vested
rights. [611-H, 612-A]

State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Raman/al Keshavlal Soni & Ors., [1983] 2
SCR 287; Ex Captain K.C. Arora & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1984] H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A 3 SCR 623; .T.P. Kapur & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1987] 1 SCR 584;
Uday Pratap_.Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1994] Supp. 3 SCC 451,
relied ~n.

3.2 It cannot be said that the 1992 resolution alters an existing
principle regarding fixation of seniority. The State Government in this
B matter had i:tot taken a decision as to the principle regarding the fixation 1
.
of seniority before the 1992 resolution.
.
[613-D]

3.3. The Single Judge has rightly held that the provisional seniority
list of 1987 and the final seniority list of 1988 were not valid. The seniority
C list of 1990 was provisional in nature and does not confer any rights on
the promotee officers. The list was challenged by the direct recruits and
the State Government filed purshis agreeing in principle to take into
consideration the training period of directly- recruited officers. [614-G]

3.4. The select list of 1989 for .promotion to the post of Deputy
D Conservator of Forests, which was approved on July 19, 1990 has been
rightly found to be defective by the Single Judge since the selection was to
be made for 15 posts and as per the Handbook published by the General
Administration 45 candidates were to be recruited from the cadre of
Assistant Conservator of Forests and the Departmental Promotion Com-
E mittee which prepared the select list had considered only 23 candidates
from the cadre. The promotee officers cannot claim that any right to
promotion had accrued to them on the basis of the said list. [615-B-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4787 of
1994 Etc.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.94 of the Gujarat High
Court in L.P.A. No. 196 of 1993.

D.A. Dave and P.P. Rao, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Bharatbhai Naik,
Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Bhargava V. Desai, Ms. Neetu Singh and Ms.
-
G Sumita Hazarika, M.N. Shroff, S. Bhowmick for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :

S.C. AGRAWAL, J.: Special leave granted in Special Leave Petitions
H Nos. 11270 of 1994 and 20271-20278 of 1996.
R.S.AJARAv. STATE(S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 601

These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division A
Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated May 4, 1994 whereby the High
Court has held that the resolution of the Government of Gujarat dated

- January 31, 1992 and the seniority list of officers in the Gujarat State Forest
Service Class II as on January 1, 1992 published under resolution dated
January 29, 1993 are illegal and void. By the resolution dated January 31,
1992, the Government of Gujarat has decided that the training period of B
directly recruited Assistant Conservators of Forests shall be taken into
\
-- account for the purpose of seniority and that the seniority of Assistant
Conservators of Forests selected through direct recruitment in and after
the year 1979 shall be determined from the date of their being sent for
training. c
In the State of Gujarat the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests
falls in Gujarat Forest Service Class II. Recruitment to the said Service is
governed by the Assistant Conservator of Forests [Gujarat Forest Service
Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1981 D
Rules') .. The said Rules provided for appointment on the post of Assistant

- Conservator of Forests by promotion from amongst persons working as
Range Forest Officers as well as by direct selection through the Gujarat
Public Service Commission. Appointment by promotion and direct selec-
tion is to be made in the ratio of 2:1 of the vacancies available. Under Rule
6 of the 1981 Rules candidates selected for appointment by direct selectio1f E
are required to undergo a• course in Forestry for two years at an institution·
recognised by Government and to obtain a diploma [or degree in Forestry)
from the institution. The Government pays an annual sum of Rs. 3,500 as
>
tuition fees. Earlier their was a provision for payment of stipend @ Rs. 500
per month and tour expenses of Rs. 2,400 for two years for each selected F
candidate sent for training. The candidate is required to execute an agree-
ment with two sureties binding himself to work diligently at such institution
and serve the Government for not less than five years after obtaining a
diploma [or degree) in Forestry from the institution and he is required to
,.,. refund the amount spent by the Government on his training with interest
@6 percent per annum if he fails to carry out the terms or is found G
unsuitable for employment due to misconduct. By notification of the
Government of Gujarat dated March 31, 1982, instead of the stipend of
Rs. 500 per month it has been provided that the trainees who have been
selected for recruitment on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests
would draw the minimum of the time scale of the pay of that post, i.e., Rs. H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R,

A 700-1300 along with admissible allowances thereof without normal incre-
ment. In addition to obtaining a diploma or degree from the institution the
selected candidates are required to undergo a course of practical training
of 8 weeks under a Deputy Conservator of Forests and to undergo a test
of the ability to make in four hours a journey of 25 kms. on foot. After
....
completing both courses of training the selected condidate is appointed to
B Class II of the Gujarat Forests Service as Assistant Conservator of Forests
on probation for a period of two years. The next post higher to the post of
Assistant Conservator of Forests is the post of Deputy Conservator of
Forests. Recruitment to the said post is governed by the Deputy Conser-
vator of Forests [Gujarat Forests Service) Recruitment Rules, 1987
C (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1987 Rules'). Under Rule 2 of the 1987
Rules appointment to the post of Deputy Consetv<!_tor of Forests is made
by promotion from amongst the persons holding the post of Assistant
Conservator of Forests and who have put in at least eight years service on
the said of Assistant Conservator of Forests. The said period of eight years
D service includes the training period in the Forest College. The recruitment

-
rules that were in force prior to the promulgation of the 1981 Rules also
made similar provision regarding appointment on the post of Assistant
Conservator of Forests by way of promotion as well as by way of direct
selection and the selected candidates were required to undergo a course
of Forestry for two years at an institution recognised by Government and
E to obtain a diploma [or degree) in Forestry from the institution. There was
provision for payment of tuition fees, monthly stipend and tour expenses
for two years for each candidate selected for training subject to his execut-
ing an agreement with two sureties binding himself to serve the Govern-
ment for not less than five years and to refund all money expended by the
Government on his training at the institution with interest @ 6 per cent
F
per annum if he failed to carry out the terms or was found unsuitable for
employment due to mis-conduct. On satisfactory completion of training the
selected· candidates were appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forests
on probation for two years.

G The appellants in C.A. No. 4787 of 1994 were appointed on the post
of Assistant Conservator of Forests by direct selection by the Gujarat
Public Service Commission in the year 1979. They were sent for the
two-year training in January 1980 and after completing the said course in
Forestry they were appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forests in
H February, 1982, Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the said appeal were

-
R.S. AJARAv. STATE [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 603

promoted as Assistant Conservators of Forests prior to the appointment of A
the appellants. On August 5, 1987, the Government of Gujarat issued a
provisional seniority list for the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests
as on January 1, 1987. In the said seniority list the names of the appellants
were not included. Thereafter a final .seniority list was issued on October
27, 1988. The said list also did not contain the names of the appellants. B
Special Civil Application No. 877 of 1988 was filed by the directly recruited
officers wherein provisional seniority list published on August 5, 1987 was
challenged. Special Civil Application No. 1109 of 1988 was filed by
promotee officers wherein they challenged the 1987 Rules relating to the
promotion on the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests. On October 24,
1989 the Government of Gujarat prepared a select list for the purpose of C
promotion on the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests. None of the
appellants was considered for promotion for the purpose of preparing the
said select list. The said select list was approved by the Gujarat Public
Service Commission on July 19, 1990. In the meanwhile another provisional
seniority list had been issued on January 8, 1990. In the said seniority list D

- the names of the appellants were shown but the period of two years spent
on training was excluded. A Civil Suit (No. 699 of 1990] was filed by the
direct recruits seeking an injunction restraining the State Government from
implementing the seniority list dated January 8, 1990. In the said suit the
Government of Gujarat, on February 8, 1991, filed a purshis agreeing in E
principle to take into consideration the training period of directly recruited
Assistant Conservators of Forests for the purpose of seniority with
retrospective effect. Special Civil Application No. 896 of 1991 was filed in
r
the High Court by the promotee officers to restrain the State Government
from revising the seniority list of 1988 and to direct the Government to F
make promotions on the basis of the select list of October 24, 1989.
Another Special Civil Application (No. 1447 of 1991] was filed by the
directly recruited officers for directing the State Government to consider
the petitioners for promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests
and to quash the select list prepared on October 24, 1989. During the
pendency of the said Writ Petitions the State Government passed the G
impugned resolution dated January 31, 1992 and issued a provisional
seniority list on January 29, 1993 of Assistant Conservators of Forests as
on January 1, 1992. Special Civil Application No. 1403 of 1993 was filed by
promotee officers challenging the said resolution dated January 31, 1992
and the seniority list dated January 29, 1993. H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A Special Civil Application No. 896 of 1991 filed by promotee officers
and Special Civil Application No. 1447 of 1991 filed by the directly
recruited officers were heard together and disposed of by a learned Single
Judge (S.D. Shah J.] by judgment dated November 20/23, 1992. The learned
Single Judge held that the 1981 Rules do not make any provision regarding
B fixation of seniority and that it was permissible for the State Government
to lay down the principle for fixation of seniority of direct recrui_ts by
resolution dated January 31, 1992 and the said resolution does not violate
the provisions of the 1981 Rules. The contention urged on behalf of the
promotee officers that the said resolution affects their vested rights was
rejected.It was held that the provisional seniority list dated August 5, 1987
C as well as the final seniority list dated October 27, 1988 were invalid since
those seniority lists did not contain the names of the directly recruited
Assistant Conservators of Forests who were selected in the year 1979 and
had been appointed after undergoing the course in Forestry. The learned
Single Judge also held that the select list that was prepared for the purpose
D of promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests on October 24,
1989 and which was approved on July 19, 1990 was illegal since it was not
prepared on the basis of seniority of Assistant Conservators of Forests and
in the matter of considering the officers the requisite number as required
under the guidelines prescribed for the purpose of consideration w~ not
taken into consideration. The resolution dated January 31, 1992 was upheld
E as valid and the select list dated October 24, 1989 was quashed and it was
directed that a fresh select list be prepared on the basis of the provisional
seniority list.

The promotee officers filed Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 195-196 of
p 1993 against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application Nos. 896 of 1991 and 1447 of 1991 respectively. The said
Letters Patent Appeals along with other Special Civil Applications [Nos.
877 of 1988, 4400 of 1993, 1109 of1988, 1696 of 1991, 1403 of 1993 and
2124 of 1986] were heard and -disposed of by the Division Bench of the

G
High Court by the impugned judgment dated May 4, 1994. The learned
Judges on the Appellate Bench reversed the judgment of the learned Single
..
Judge and have held that the resolution dated January 31, 1992 is violative
of the statutory rules (1981 Rules) of recruitment to the post of Assistant
Conservator of Forests, more particularly Rule 8 and deserves to be struck
down since it was inconsistent with the said rules. The said resolution was
H also held to be invalid on the ground it was given retrospective effect from
R.S.AJARAv. STATE[S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 605

1979 and the seniority list which was published under the said resolution A
has also been struck down by the High Court. The learned judges have
upheld the final seniority list published on October 27, 1988 as valid and
legal and have upheld the select list which was prepared on the basis of
the said final seniority list. On that view of the matter the learned judges
have allowed both the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the promotee
officers against the judgment of the learned Single Judge and on that basis B
Special Civil Application No. 896 of 1991 filed by the promotee officers
was allowed and Special Civil Application No. 1447 of 1991 filed by the
directly recruited officers was dismissed. As regards other Special Civil
Applications the learned Judges have allowed Special Civil Application
Nos. 4400 of 1993 and 1403 of 1992 filed by the promotee officers and have C
dismissed Special Civil Application Nos. 877 of 1988, 1109 of 1988, 1696 of
1991 and 2124 of 1986 filed by the directly recruited officers. Feeling
aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court,
the directly recruited officers as well as the State of Gujarat have filed these
appeals.
D
Shri D.A. Dave, the learned senior counsel appearing for the directly
recruited officers who are appellants in Civil Appeal No. 4787 of 1994 and
in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11270 of 1994, has submitted
that the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court were in
error in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and that the E
learned Single Judge had rightly held that the 1981 Rules do not make any
provision regarding fixation of seniority of directly recruited Assistant
Conservator of Forests and since the 1981 Rules are silent it was open to
the State Government to issue an administrative order laying down the
principles for fixation of seniority of directly recruited Assistant Conser- p
vator of Forests and that the resolution dated January 31, 1992 does not
suffer from any legal infirmity. The learned counsel has also submitted that
the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court were in error
in holding that the said resolution is inconsistent with the 1981 Rules and
that it is bad on account of having given retrospective effect. The submis-
sion is that the impugned judgment does not affect any of the vested rights G
of the promotee officers and that the learned Single Judge has rightly held
that the provisional seniority list dated August 5, 1987 and the final
seniority list dated October 27, 1988 were invalid and so also the select list
of October 24, 1989. Shri Subhash Bhargava, the learned counsel appearing
for the State of Gujarat, has taken the same stand. H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the promotee
officers, has, however, supported the judgment of the Division Bench of
the High Court and has urged that the resolution dated January 31, 1992
is invalid being inconsistent with the 1981 Rules and furthermore it adver-
sely affects the rights which accrued to the promotee officers in the matter
of seniority and promotion on the basis of the principle of seniority which
B was being followed prior to the passing of the resolution dated January 31,
1992 whereunder seniority was determined on the basis of the date of
appointment.

Before we deal with the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel,
C we may briefly refer to the background in which the resolution dated
January 31, 1992 was passed by the State Government. On November 17,
1981, the President of the Forest Research Institute & Colleges, Dehradun
addressed a letter to the Secretary, Forest Department, in the various
States and a copy of the said Jetter was also sent to the Inspector-General
D of Forests, Ex-officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Agriculture. In the said letter, the President of the Forest
Research Institute & Colleges has referred to the complaint of the trainees
under-going training at State Forest Service Training Colleges at Coim-
batore, Burnihat and Dehradun that because they were not treated as
"in-service trainees" they were undergoing great hardship in matters of
E getting sufficient money to meet their training expenditure and further that
due to their two-year training not being considered a part of their services
they lose seniority when they are to be taken in the promotion quota of the
Indian Forest Service subsequently. In the said Jetter it was stated that
some states, like Jammu & Kashmir and Sikkim, send their State Forest
p Service trainees after appointing them in service. It was also stated that the
trainees of the Indian Forest Service are appointed in services before
joining the training college. The President has expressed the view that there
is very strong case for the state Forest Service trainees to be treated as
"in-service trainees" from the date they are selected by the respective State
Public Service Commissions. He further stated that in order to raise their
G standard of training and morale as also to bring them at par with the Indian
Forest Service training facilities, the state Forest Service trainees may also
be treated as 'in-service trainees", i.e., they may be appointed to the State
Forest Service before they are sent for training in their respective colleges.
Action on the basis of the said Jetter from the President, Forest Research
H Institute and College was taken by the Government of Gujarat in stages.
R.S.AJARAv. STATE [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 607

By resolution dated March 31, 1982 the grievance of the trainees regarding A
the allowances payable to them during the course of training was removed
and it was prescribed that the directly recruited Assistant Conservators of
Forests undergoing training shall draw the minimum of their time scale of
pay in that post, i.e., Rs. 700-1300 together with admissible allowances
thereof with immediate effect. By the 1987 Rules their grievance about the B
period of_ training not being counted for the purpose of promotion was
redressed and it was provided that for the purpose of eligibility for promo-
tion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests the period of training
would be included. The other grievance with regard to seniority on the post
of Assistant Conservator of Forests remained pending consideration with
the State Government till the passing of the resolution dated January 31, C
1992. The said resolution dated January 31, 1992 reads as under :-

"PREAMBLE

Officers being selected by direct recruitment in Indian Forests D
Service, are being sent for training in Diploma course in Forestry,
and their training period is being taken into account during their
probation period and for the purposes of seniority. The Goverment
of India has, vide its letter dated 17.11.81, instructed the State
Governments to treat the training period of directly recruited
Assistant Conservator of Forests as part of their service. Pursuant E
to the said instructions of the Government of India, many State
Governments have issued orders treating the training period of
directly recruited Assistant Conservator of Fore,sts as part of their
service. As per Note-2, bolow Rule 15, Forest Manual Part-I, the
training period is being taken into account for the purpose of p
pensionable service. During the training period, the trainees are
also paid the pay of the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests.
As per the amendment made in the Recruitment Rules of Deputy
Forest Conservators, vide the Forests and Environment Depart-
ment resolution dated 8.5.87, the training period is taken into
account as minimum experience. Taking into consideration the G
abovestated reasons, the question of treating the training period
of directly recruited Assistant Forest Conservators as part of their
service and taking the same into account for the purposes of
seniority, was under active consideration of Government. After
scrutinizing all aspects of the instant matter, it is decided to take H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 2 S.C.R.

A into account the training period of directly recruited Assistant
Forest Conservators, for the purposes of seniority.

RESOLUTION

It is hereby decided to take into account the training period of
B directly recruited Assistant Conservator of Forests for the pur-
poses of seniority. The seniority of the Assistant Forest Conser-
vators selected through direct recruitment in and after the year
·1979 shall have to be determined from the date of their being sent
for training.

c The provisional seniority list of the Class II officers of the
Gujarat Forests Service showing their position as on 1.1.90 has
been published under Resolution No. FST-1283-7075- V-1, dated
8.1.90, which will have to be modified as per this order and a fresh
seniority list duly modified, shall have to be issued."
D
The learned Judges on the Division Bench of the High Court have
held that the resolution dated January 31, 1992 deserves to be struck dcwn
since the administrative instructions contained therein' are violative of the
1981 Rules which are statutory in nature. It is, therefore, necessary to
examine the scheme of the 198.1 Rules to determine as to whether they lay
E down a principle for fixation of seniority of persons appointed as Assistant
Conservators of Forests by direct selection. As stated· therein, the 1981
Rules have been made to provide for regulating recruitment to the post of
Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Gujarat Forests Service Class II.
The heading of the said Rules also indicates that they are recruitment rules.
p Rule 2 makes provision for appointment to the post of Assistant Conser-
vator of Forests to be made either by promotion or by direct selection.
Rule 3 prescribes the conditions for eligibility for appointment by promo-
tion. Rule 4 prescribes the conditions for eligibility for appointment by
direct selection. Rule 5 prescribes the ratio in which the appointment is to
be made by promotion and by direct selection. Rule 6 prescribes that the
G selected candidate shall be required to undergo a course in Forestry for
two years at an institution recognised by Government and to obtain a
Diploma [or degree] in Forestry from the Institution, and also makes
provision for payment of tuition fees, stipend and tour expenses for the
said period of two years. Rule 7 makes provision for a course of practical
H training for eight weeks for the directly recruited candidates. Rule 8
R.S.ATARAv. STATE [S.C. AGRAWAL,J.) 609

provides for appointment of a selected candidate to Class II of the Gujarat A
Forests Service as Assistant Conservator of Forests on probation for two
years after he has satisfactorily completed the courses of training
prescribed in rules 6 and 7. Rule 9 requires that the selected candidate
shall be required to pass the Departmental examination and an examina-
tion in Gujarati or Hindi or both. Rule 10 makes a similar provision in B
respect of a candidate appointed by promotion. A perusal of the provisions
of the 1981 Rules thus indicates that the said rules deal exclusively with the
matter of recruitment and appointment on the post of Assistant Conser-
vator of Forests and do not make any mention with regard to fixation of
seniority of the persons so appointed.
c
The 1981 Rules differ from similar rules framed in the State of Orissa
which came up for consideration before this Court in Prafulla Kumar Swain
v. Prakash Chandra Misra & Ors., [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 181. In that case, this
Court has Considered the provisions of the Orissa Forest Service Class II
Recruitment Rules, 1959 and the regulations made thereunder relating to D
appointment on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. The said rules
made provision for appointment on the post of Assistant Conservator of
Forests by promotion as well as by direct recruitment and persons selected
by direct recruitment were required to undergo a course in Forestry for a
period of two years· and they were to be appointed after successful com-
pletion of training at the institution. The question was whether service was E
to be reckoned from the date of actual appointment to the service or from
the date of selection for training and the period of training could be
counted for the purpose of seniority. It was held that seniority had to be
reckoned from the actual date of appointment in view of the fact that there
was an express provision in Regulation 12(c) wherein it was prescribed
"such service will count only from the date of appointment to the service
F
after successful completion of the course of training". In other words, in
the regulations appended to the rules in that case there was an express
provision that the period of training will not be counted as part of the
service. This Court was of the view that in view of the said provision the
period of training could not be counted for the purpose of seniority. G

The learned Judges on the Division Bench of the High Court have
referred to the decision in Prafulla Kumar Swain (supra) and have observed
that this Court did not base its conclusion only on Regulation 12(c) and
that the absence of a provision similar to Regulation 12(c) in the 1981 H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A Rules does not make any difference. We find it difficult to agree with the
said view of the High Court. In Prafulla Kumar Swain (supra), it has been
observed:

"Regulation 12(c) in unmistakable terms says that the period of
training will not count as service under Government. Such service
B will count only from the date of appointment to the service after
successfol completion of the course of training. (Emphasis sup-
plied) We must give full meaning and effect to this Regulation".

"Nowhere in the Recruitment Rules of 1959 it is specified that the
services of a direct recruit under the Government shall be reck-
c oned from the date of selection in the competitive examination.
On the contrary, Regulation 12(c) is very clear that the period of
training is not to be reckoned as Government service."

It would thus appear that in view of the express provision contained
D in Regulation 12(c) it was held that the period of training could not be
reckoned for the purpose of seniority. There is no provision similar to
Regulation 12(c) in the 1981 Rules. In the absence of a provision similar
to Regulation 12(c) in the 1981 Rules it is not possible to say that the 1981
Rules postulate that the seniority of directly recruited Assistant Conser-
E vator vi Forests must be counted only from the date of their appointment
and the period of training undergone by them prior to the appointment
must be ignored. The learned Judges on the Division Bench of the High
Court referred to Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the !981 Rules and have observed
that the statutory position emanating from the said rules is that the ap-
pointment of a direct recruit takes place only after his successful comple-
F tion of training course. We are unable to construe these rules to mean that
seniority should be counted from the date of appointment and the period
training should be excluded. We must, therefore, proceed on the basis that
the 1981 Rules do not lay down any principle in the matter of fixation of
seniority of the Assistant Conservator of Forests who are recruited under
G the provisions of the said Rules. Since the Rules are silent it was open to
the State Government to lay down the principle for fixation of seniority by
an administrative order and the resolution dated January 31, 1992 cannot
be held to be bad on the ground that it is inconsistent with the 1981 Rules.

As regards the principle that has been laid down in the resolution
H dated January 31, 1992, it cannot be disputed that normally seniority is
R.S.AJARAv. STATE[S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 611

measured by the length of service. But this does not preclude a different A
prescription provided the constitutional tests are satisfied. [See : N.K
Chauhan & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1977] 1 SCR 1037, at p. 1057
and Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1994] 2 SCC 622, at p. 627.
There have been cases where the period of training prior to the date of
appointment has been reckoned for the purpose of seniority. In Prabhakar B
& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., {1976] 2 SCC 890, Clause 7(l)(a) of
the Bombay Police Officers (Combined Cadre) Conditions of Service

- Order, 1954 made under Section 5(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951
prescribed that seniority was to be fixed by taking into account the period
of training in certain cases. The said provision was affirmed as valid by this

- Court and it was observed :

"There was nothing wrong, illegal or unreasonable in making a
C

provision in sub-clause (a) that in such a situation the commence-
ment of the period of training will be taken as the date for the
purposes of fixation of seniority. There was a reasonable and
rational nexus between the object and the rule. It was for the
D
rule-making authority to decide and to choose in such a situation-
either the date of commencement of the training or the date of
appointment." [p. 894]

Similarly in H. V. Pardasani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 2 E
SCC 468, under Note 2 appearing below Rule 12(5) of the Central
Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 certain period prior to the date of appoint-
ment of direct recruits was treated as approved service for the purpose of
seniority. The said provision was held as valid on the view that in the
process of direct recruitment there is a considerable delay and though the
F
competitive examination is held in one partkular year, by the time the
selected officer comes to join the post, more than a year is Jost and,
therefore, a rational view had been taken of the situation and for the
computation of length of service the particular provision had been made
and the same was not open to challenge as arbitrary provision.
G
The resolution dated January 31, 1992 has been assailed by the
promotee officers on the ground that it is retrospective in operation and
affects their rights. The law in this field is well settled by the decisions of
this Court. A benefit that has accrued under the existing rules cannot be
taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect and no statutory H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A rule or administrative order can whittle down or destroy any right which
has become crystallized and no rule can be framed under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution which affects or impairs the vested rights.
See : State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Raman/al Keshavlal Soni & Ors., [1983] 2
SCR 287; Ex-Captain KC. Arora & Anr., v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1984]
3 SCR 623; T.P. Kapur & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1987] 1 SCR
B . 584; Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1994] Supp. 3 SCC
451. Can it be said that the resolution dated January 31, 1992 makes any ....
change in the existing provision governing the seniority so as to take away I
or deprive the respondents of a right which has accrued to them or which
has crystallized? As noticed earlier, the 1981 Rules do not contain any
C principle governing the seniority of Assistant Conservators of Forests
appointed under the said Rules. Shri P.P. Rao has invited our attention to
the Handbook for Personnel Officers issued by the General Administration
Department of the Government of Gujarat. In Para 1 of Chapter V, dealing
with SENIORITY, it is stated :

D
"In the case of direct recruits appointed on probation, the seniority
would be determined ordinarily with reference to the date of their
appointment on probation while in the case of the promotees,
seniority would be determined with reference to the date of their
promotion to longterm vacancies". [Emphasis supplied]
E

This is a general principle which is to be applied ordinarily. But there
was nothing to show that this principle was applied by the State Govern-
ment in the matter of fixation of seniority of directly recruited Assistant
F Conservators of Forests. The fact that it was not so applied is evident from
the fact that in the provisional seniority list dated August 5, 1987 as well
as in the final seniority list dated October 27, 1988 the names of the directly
recruited Assistant Conservators of Forests were not included which indi-
cates that the State Government had not taken a decision regarding the
principle to be followed regarding fixation of seniority of such officers and
.G the matter was under consideration of the Government. This fact is also
borne out by the Preamble to the resolution dated January 31, 1992 wherein
it is stated that the question of treating the training period of directly
recruited Assistant Conservator of Forests as part of their service and
taking the same into account for the purpose of seniority, was under active
H consideration of Government.
R.S.ATARAv. STAlE[S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 613

Shri P .P. Rao has also placed reliance on the resolution of the A
Government of Gujarat· dated December 4, 1986. The said resolution
relates to implementation of the judgment of this Court in N.K Chauhan
(supra) in the matter of allocation of vacancies ear-marked for direct
recruits and promotees and adjustment of appointments made in excess of
quota in a particular year by pushing down to the next year or years. In B
that context, in answer to the question about.the manner of placement of
officers appointed against "carried forward" vacancies, It has been stated,
that "seniority inter-se of the officers has necessarily to be governed by th~
chronological order of dates of appointment". This order is also general in
nature and on the basis of the same it cannot be said that the Government
had taken a decision regarding the principle to be applied in the matter of C
·fixation of seniority of directly recruited Assistant Conservators of Forests.
It must, therefore, be held that prior to the issuance of the resolution dated
January 31, 1992 the State Government had not prescribed any principle
for fixation of seniority of· directly recruited Assistant Conservators of
Forests and it connot, therefore, be said that the said resolution alters an D
existing principle regarding fixation of seniority of these officers.

In V.T. Khanzode & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr., (1982] 2
sec 7, while upholding the validity of an administrative circular of the
Reserve Ban~ of India whereby it was decided to combine the seniority of
all officers on the basis of their total length of service [including officiating E
service] in Group I (Section A), Group II and Group III with .retrospective
effect which was assailed on the ground that it had adversely affected the
existing seniority of officers, particularly of those in Group I, who were
placed many places below their existing. position of seniority, this Court has
observed·:
F
"Private interest of employees of public undertakings. can.not over-
ride public interest and effort has to be made to harmonize the
two considerations. No scheme governing service matters can.be
foolproof and some. section or. the other of.employees is bound to
feel aggrieved on the score of its expectations being falsified or G
remaining to be fulfilled. Arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and
mala fides will of course render any scheme unconstitutional but
the fact that the scheme does not satisfy the expectations of every
employee is not evidence of these. Vested interests are prone to
hold on to their acquisitions and we understand the feelings of H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A Group I Officers who have to surrender a part of the benefits which
had accrued to them in a watertight system of groups." [p.29]

In Union of India & Ors. v. Dr. S. Krishna Murthy & Ors., [1989] 4 -'
SCC 689, Emergency Commissioned Officers/Short Service Commission
Officers recruited to the Indian Forest Service and Indian Police Service
B had been given the benfit of earlier military service and as a result the year
of allotment was changed. This was challenged by other officers on the
ground that it affected their seniority. The said contention was negatived
by this Court and it was observed :

c "The respondents have been given a particular seniority in accord-
ance with the rules. The seniority of the respondents is not taken
away or interfered with by the impugned rules. The year of allot-
ment of the respondents remains the same and is not altered to
their prejudice. The impugned rules only provide for giving
weightage to the ECOs and SSCOs for their past services in the
D
army during the emergency period and their year of allotment will
be determined in accordance with the impugned rules ...... Nobody
has any fundamental right to a particular seniority or to any chance
of promotion." [p. 698]

E As regards the effect of the Resolution dated January 31, 1992 on
the rights of the promotee officers in the matter of seniority and promotion,
it may be stated that till the issuance of the resolution dated January 31,
1992 the inter-se seniority of directly recruited and promotee officers had
not been determined and no final seniority list indicating the inter- se
p seniority of such officers had been issued. The provisional seniority list
dated August 5, 1987 and the final seniority list dated October 27, 1988 did
not include the names of the directly recruited Assistant Conservators of
Forests even though they had been appointed in 1982 much before the
publication of those seniority lists. The learned Single Judge has rightly
held that these seniority lists were not valid. The seniority list that was
G issued on January 8, 1990 was provisional in nature and did not confer any
rights. Moreover the said seniority list was challenged by the directly
recruited officers by filing Civil Suit No. 699 of 1990 wherein the State
Government filed a purshis agreeing in principle to take into consideration
the training period of directly recruited Assistant Conservators of Forests
H for the purpose of seniority with retrospective effect. It cannot, therefore,
'

{

-~-
R.S.AJARAv. STATE [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 615

be said that the seniority inter-se between the promotee and the directly A
recruited officers had been finally determined prior to the issuance of the
resolution dated January 31, 1992 and the said seniority was being altered
to the prejudice of the promotee officers.

Similarly as regards the right to promotion it may be stated that the
select list which was prepared on October 24, 1989 for the promotion on B
the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests and which was approved on· July
19, 1990 has been rightly found to be defective by the learned Single Judge
since the selection was to be made for 15 posts and as per the Handbook
published by the General Administration Department, Government of
_Gujarat under the heading "Classification of Posts for the purpose of C
Promotion" 45 candidates were required to be considered from the cadre
of Assistant Conservators of Forests and the Departmental Promotion
Committee which prepared the select list on October 24, 1989 and con-
sidered only 23 candidates from the cadre of Assistant Conservators of
Forests. The said select list was, therefore, rightly found to be invalid by D
the learned Single Judge. The learned Judges on the Division Bench of the·
High Court have not considered the said infirmity in the preparation of the
select list. The promotee officers cannot, therefore, claim that any right to
promotion had accrued to them on the basis of the said select list and the
same has been adversely affected as a result of the resolution dated January
n.~ E

For the reasons aforementioned, we are unable to uphold the judg-
ment of the Division Bench of the High Court striking down resolution
dated January 31, 1992 and the seniority list dated January 29, 1993. On
that view of the matter, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing F
Special Civil Application No. 896 of 1992 filed by the promotee officers
and allowing Special Civil Application No. 1447of1991 filed by the directly
recruited officers has to be restored. For the same reasons, Special Civil
Application Nos. 1403 of 1993 and 4400 of 1993 have to be dismissed.
Special Civil Application Nos. 2124 of 1986 and 877 of 1988 filed by the
directly recruited officers and Special Civil Applications Nos. 1109 of 1988 G
and 1696 of 1991 filed by the promotee officers relating to fixation of
seniority have become infructuous on account of resolution dated January
31, 1992. ~

In the result, the appeals are allowed, the judgment of the High H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A Court dated May 4, 1994 in L.P A. Nos. 195 and 196 of 1993 is set aside
and the s_aid appeals are dismissed and consequently the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dismissing Special Civil Application No. 896 of 1992,
filed by the promotee officers and allowing Special Civil Applieation No.
1447 of 1991 filed by the directly recruited officers, is restored. So also
B Special Civil Application Nos. 1403 of 1993 and 44(!0 of 1993 filed by the
promotee officers are dismissed'. Special Civil Application Nos. 2124 of
1986, 877 of 1988, 1109 of 1988 and 1696 of 1991 are dismissed as having
become infructuous. No orders as to costs. ·
/
J.N.S. Appeal allowed.