Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2439      OF 2010

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.17251 of 2006)

H.S. Vankani and Ors. ……Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Gujarat and Ors.            …..Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

Leave granted.

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  in exercise of  its powers conferred under  

1

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 direct  selection should  

possess  a  minimum  educational  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  

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.

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.  Rule 13 deals with  appointment,  

which reads as follows:-

“On  successful  completion  of  the  Training  Course  from  the  Ranger’s  College,  the  candidate  shall  be  appointed  as  a  Ranger  if  he  passes  with  higher  

2

standard  certificate  and 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.  

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).  Rule  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  examination  from a  recognised  university  in  any  of  the  

subjects  mentioned  therein  for  admission  to  the  competition  

examination 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 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  

3

College, Dehradun, or Southern Forest College, Coimbatore for a period  

of  two years  and that  the Government 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 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.”

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 that the seniority of the Rangers shall be governed  

by their respective ranks in the final examination at the Rangers College  

irrespective of the date of joining the service.  

8. 1974 Rules were later amended by the Government of  Gujarat  

invoking  the powers conferred under which the proviso 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  

4

bachelor’s degree in Science or Agriculture of any university recognized  

by the Government of Gujarat instead of the passing the intermediate  

examination so as to be eligible for writing the competitive 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.

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,  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,  Rajpipla,  SFS.  College  

Burnihat, Meghalaya, etc. continued with course of two years duration.  

Above facts  would  indicate  that  different  colleges followed their  own  

5

course  structures,  curriculum  and  time  schedule  for  successful  

completion of training imparted in their respective colleges.

10. Appellants  herein (non-graduates)  were selected to the post  of  

Ranger Forest Officer 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 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 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.

11. The Respondents herein (graduates) selected by the GPSC in the  

year  1979  were  sent  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 March, 1981.  Non graduates  though selected  

6

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 with  regard  

to the inter-se seniority  between 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  

promotion to the post 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 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  are  

governed by the above mentioned Rules with regard to their  inter-se  

seniority.  

13. The non-graduates (1979-80 batch) who had to undergo training  

for two years at Gujarat Forest Rangers’ College, Rajpipla, submitted  

7

representation  in  February  1981 to  the  Chief  Conservator  of  Forest,  

Vadodara claiming seniority over (1980-81 batch)  contending that they  

could join service late not due to their fault, but due to the fact that they  

had to undergo two years training course 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 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  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 that those who have given two  years  of  training,  their  minimum  educational  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.  Therefore  it  is  not  proper  to  change seniority  because  of  late  appointment  due  to  long  

8

training, so kindly note that your proposal is not  acceptable.”

14. The office of  the Chief Conservator of  Forest  later  published a  

gradation list of Range Forest Officers, as it stood on 1st January, 1983  

in which the respondents were shown as 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 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  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 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,  Agriculture  Department,  Gandhinagar,  letter  No:Kra/FST/1071/81475/VA,  dated  12.10.1982  it  has  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  

9

educational qualification is B.Sc degree.  Thus there  is basic difference between both the trainees.  Thus  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  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  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.”  

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  the  various  orders  issued  by  the  Government/  

Department were never 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/A-225/61 dated 29.09.1993  

to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest stating that the following  

decision has been taken in consultation with the General Administrative  

Department which reads as follows:-

1

“….Selection  of  Range  Forest  Officer  of  1979-81  batch is as per the provision of Recruitment Rules of  1969.  While selection of candidates or thereafter, is  as  per  amended  Recruitment  Rules  thereafter.  Therefore, selection of candidates of 1979-81 batch is  earlier as per Recruitment Rules of 1969.  Generally,  candidates  selected  directly  by  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.  The provision  14 of Rangers Recruitment Rules 1969 is to decide  internal  seniority  of  the  concerned  batch  only,  according to that Range Forest Officer candidates of  1979-81 batch should be placed above candidates of  1980-81 batch in the seniority list.”

17. Noticing  that  the  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  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  above  mentioned  note  

preferred a Writ Petition SCA 449 of 1994 before the Gujarat High Court  

and the writ petition was heard along with 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  petition holding that  though the persons selected in the 1980-81  

1

batch were given training for a shorter period, on 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 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 (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 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  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  

1

Special  Civil  Application  No.5297  of  2009  was  preferred  by  one  

Assistant  Conservator  of  Forest  before  the  Gujarat  High  Court  for  

implementing the Government 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 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 the SCA No.7488 of 2009 by quashing  

the  Government  Resolution  dated  19.07.2007.   State  Government  it  

seen  has  accepted  the  above  mentioned  judgment  and  passed  a  

Resolution on 19th January, 2010 which reads as follows :-

“Above  matter  was  under  consideration  of  the  Government  and  after  careful  consideration,  the  Government resolves 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.  Along with this the provisions of resolution  dated  19.07.2009  contained  in  paragraph  no.2  are  also  revoked.   The  provisions  of  considering  the  

1

service  as continuous for  the purpose of  increment  and pension, shall retain as they are.

The  issue  with  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”

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 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 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 counsel further submitted  

that when the appellants and the respondents were selected in the year  

1979 and 1980 the rule stipulated two years training and hence there  

was no justification  in reducing the training period to one year, so far as  

1

the respondents are concerned.  Learned  counsel submitted that  the  

training  period  ought  to  have  been  reckoned   for  the  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 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  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 890,  and G. Deendayalan vs.  

Union of India & Ors (1997) 2 SCC 638. Learned counsel also  referred  

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 of seniority.   

1

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 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  trainees  in  respect  of  their  educational  qualifications.  

Learned  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 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 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  

1

Court in SCA No.7488 of 2009. Referring to 1969- Rules, 1974 Rules  

etc. learned counsel submitted that inter se seniority between both the  

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  

Sharma  vs. Haryana S.E.B.,, 1994 (supp) 1 SCC 276.  Reference was  

also made on the decision of Apex Court in K.R. Mudgal   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  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 1982. The State  

Government in its letter dated 12.10.1982 had taken the view  that two  

years’ training was imparted to non-graduates of 1979-81 batch and one  

year training was imparted  only to graduates of 1980-81 batch since  

candidates with lesser qualification required through training compared  

1

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  conscious  decision  that  it  was  not  

proper to unsettle the settled seniority 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  

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.  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 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  

1

inter se seniority of the candidates of a particular batch and does  not  

determine  the  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-

emphasis  that  fact.  The  note  put  up  by  the  Under  Secretary  on  

29.09.1993 is, therefore, contrary to Rule 14 of 1969 Rules 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  the  Rangers  shall  be  

governed  by  their  respective  ranks  in  the  final  examination  at  the  

Rangers  College  irrespective  of  their  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 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.   

1

25. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital 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  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  

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 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 corruption.  Public  

money is also being spent by the Government  to defend their otherwise  

untenable stand. Further it also consumes lot of judicial time from the  

2

lowest  court  to  the  highest  resulting  in  constant  bitterness  among  

parties  at  the  cost  of  sound  administration  affecting  public  interest.  

Courts are 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) 14 SCC 641,  T.R. Kapoor v. State of  

Haryana  (1989) 4 SCC 71,  Bimlesh Tanwar  v.  State of Haryana,  

(2003) 5 SCC 604. In view of 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 case.  

26.  We will  now examine whatever it  is possible to strictly enforce  

Rule  10  of  1969  Rules  and  Rule  18  of  1974  Rules.   Rule  making  

authority wanted the finally selected candidates to undergo training in  

the Northern Forest Rangers College, 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  in  intermediate  

examination. Later those colleges changed their course  duration to an  

2

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 and the minimum educational  qualification  

was fixed as graduation. Necessary amendments, however, were not  

carried out in Rule 10 of 1969 Rules or Rule 18 of 1974 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  the  candidates  have  to  

undergo their  training.  Rules were therefore,  found to be unworkable  

and  Government  was  in  an  obscure  situation,  and  therefore  

Government took a conscious decision that the candidates of 1979-81  

batch  with  intermediate  qualification  would  undergo  the  training,  the  

duration of which was two years and the candidates of 1980-81 batch  

with graduation as qualification  would undergo the course, the duration  

of which was one year.  Such a decision was taken, evidently due to the  

reason that Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of 1974 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  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,  

2

but in Rule 18, the period of two years was substituted as one year only  

vide  Notification  dated  25th  November,  1983  and  necessary  

amendments are yet to be carried out in Rule 10 of 1969 Rules.   

27. Strict interpretation of Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of 1974  

Rules was unworkable and literal interpretation would have resulted in  

absurd results.  When the educational qualification prescribed was pass  

in intermediate examination,  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 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 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 pereat (it  is  better  for  a thing to have effect  than to be  

made void).  Principle also means that if  the obvious intention of the  

2

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  

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.  

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 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; 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…..”

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 in such a manner so as to make it workable  having  regard  to  the  doctrine  “  ut  res  magis  valeat   quam pereat”.

2

30. In  Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam &  

Ors.(1989) 3 SCC, 709, this Court held as follows:-

“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  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 a statute, does in  order  to  ascertain  from,  and  accord  to,  the  statute  the  meaning and purpose which the legislature 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,  Paradise Printers  v. Union  

Territory of Chandigarh (1988) 1 SCC 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 such a situation is unlikely 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 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  

2

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  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  over  the  candidates  of  

1979-81 batch.  

34. Appeal  therefore  lacks  merits,  and  the  same  is  accordingly  

dismissed.

.……………………J ( Dalveer Bhandari)

..…………………….J. ( K.S. Radhakrishnan)

New Delhi Dated:  16th March, 2010

2