Satish Kumar Bansal and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Bhanwar Singh, J.—This writ petition is directed against the impugned seniority list of 5.1.2004, as contained in Annexure-1. This list alleged to be contrary to the rules is sought to be quashed. The Petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider them for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger in accordance with the erstwhile seniority list of 23.7.2003, with modification of the said list pursuant to this Court''s order dated 16.9.2003 excluding the names of Deputy Forest Rangers whose appointments were based on ad hoc or officiating basis.

Shortly stated, the Petitioners'' case is that the seniority list dated 23.7.2003 was issued on the basis of the substantive appointment of Deputy Forest Rangers. According to the U.P. Subordinate Forest Service (Rangers, Deputy Rangers and Foresters) Rules, 1951 (hereafter known to be as the Rules, 1951), the Conservator of Forests is the appointing authority of the Foresters and Deputy Forest Rangers (Rule 12), whereas the appointing authority of Forest Rangers is the Chief Conservator of Forests. The post of Chief Conservator of Forests has been redesignated as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests who is the Head of Department.

In terms of the order dated 21.9.1988, issued by the Department, the eligibility/seniority of Deputy Forest Rangers was liable to be determined from the date of substantive appointments as Deputy Forest Rangers. Despite this rule of the seniority to be determined with effect from the date of substantive appointment, the impugned seniority list has been prepared to the detriment of the Petitioners. As a consequence to the infringement of the said rule, the seniority list dated 5.1.2004 is liable to be quashed.

As a matter of fact, the impugned seniority list has been prepared under Rule 6 of the U.P. Government Servants (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter to be referred to as Seniority Rules, 1991). The first seniority list issued under the Seniority Rules, 1991 was notified on 1.7.1996 which was challenged by the Petitioners before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 395 of 1997. The said claim petition, alongwith similar other petitions, was ultimately allowed by the Services Tribunal vide its judgment dated 20.2.1998. The Tribunal quashed the seniority list dated 1.7.1996 and directed for preparation of a list of Deputy Forest Rangers for the purpose of promotion to the post of Forest Rangers at the State level on the basis of seniority lists drawn'' by the appointing authorities according to the length of substantive service of Deputy Rangers. The State of U.P., however, preferred a Writ Petition No. 971 of 1998. The judgment of the Tribunal was stayed. The writ petition is still pending. However, the High Court in that writ petition, passed an order on 22.7.1998. The stay order expired on 1.5.2001 as the Court declined to extend the interim order. In this situation, though the writ petition is still pending, yet the judgment of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal is binding upon the State authorities for all purposes. On 9.5.2002, the High Court passed a detailed order in Writ Petition No. 653 (S/B) of 2002 and directed the State Government to hold regular selection for filling up the promotional quota posts of Forest Rangers within a period of four months. In consequence, a tentative seniority list was issued on 27.12.2002, inviting objections up to 23.7.2002 and the final seniority list was issued on 23.7.2003. The names of the Petitioners in that seniority list were shown at serials No. 42, 38 and 41 respectively. Though the said final seniority list dated 23.7.2003 was prepared on the basis of date of substantive appointments as Deputy Forest Rangers, yet some Deputy Forest Rangers who were promoted on the basis of being toppers in the Forests Training Course were also included therein. Since the promotion of toppers in the Forests Training Course was officiating in nature, their inclusion in the final seniority list became a subject-matter of dispute in Writ Petition No. 5837(S/S) of 2003.

This Court, vide its order of 16.9.2003, stayed the operation of the said seniority list as induction of the officiating Deputy Forest Rangers was considered to be contrary to the rules and as such illegal. The Chief Conservator Forests (Administration and Planning) U.P., Lucknow, taking wrong advantage of this Court''s clear cut direction modified the seniority list and distorted it and thereby complicated the whole issue. The said authority ignored the rules and went beyond the scope of the modification as directed by this Court as also by the Services Tribunal. Again, the Respondent No. 3 included in the seniority list the officiating Deputy Forest Rangers against the rules and also included those Foresters/Range Clerks who were superseded but promoted subsequently. Such Foresters/Range Clerks were granted seniority on the basis of their initial cadre which was again in conflict with the Rules, 1951. As a consequence, the seniority of the Petitioners in the impugned seniority list was lowered down by hundreds of position and this resulted in serious prejudice to them. It is in these circumstances, the impugned seniority list has been challenged by the Petitioners.

The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed their response through the counter-affidavit of Shri D. N. Bhatt, I.F.S., the Chief Conservator of Forests. Shri Bhatt stated that all the Deputy Forest Rangers working in the department are substantive appointees at the feeding post of Foresters and since the feeding cadre of Forester is the only cadre for promotion to the post of Deputy Forest Ranger, the seniority list has been prepared accordingly on the basis of the seniority of the feeding cadre, i.e., that of Foresters. The seniority list of 5.1.2004, impugned in their present writ petition has been prepared in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1991. Mr. Bhatt has justified the validity of the impugned seniority list and he even referred to the statements of the Petitioners'' counsel in Writ Petition No. 971 (S/B) of 1998 regarding preparation of the seniority list according to the provisions of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1991. The list in question has been prepared with a view to carry out a writ of mandamus issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 653 (S/B) of 2002, Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, whereby directions were issued to complete the promotional quota of Forest Range Officers by promoting the Deputy Forest Rangers. It is a settled law that the seniority should always be determined on the basis of the feeding cadre and even if an incumbent was promoted to the next higher post later to his junior, he would get the seniority of the feeding cadre alongwith other benefits. It is in this context that the seniority list in question has been prepared on the basis of the substantive appointment in the feeding cadre as per Seniority Rules, 1991. In the feeding cadre of Foresters, the posts of Range Clerks had been merged in the year 1976 and now since the said feeding cadre of the Foresters and the Range Clerks had amalgamated, all such Foresters and Range Clerks will be governed by the seniority determined in the said initial cadre. The seniority list dated 1.7.1996, validity of which was questioned before the Services Tribunal was prepared on the basis of the substantive appointment on the post of Forester/Range Clerk. The judgment of the Services Tribunal which had set aside the said list is still subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 971 (S/B) of 1998. Mr. Bhatt conceded that Rule 5 (b) (1) and (2) of Seniority Rules, 1951, is still operative in its original form, yet he asserted that since there was no direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Forest Rangers, the cadre of foresters would be considered to be their feeding cadre and not the cadre of Deputy Forest Rangers. It has also been stated that as on date, there is not a single Deputy Forest Ranger who must have been a direct recruit in that cadre. As regards the Foresters who were designated as training toppers and designated as officiating Deputy Forest Ranger, it has been mentioned that the Government orders dated 26.2.1966 and 6.2.1971, on the basis of which such officiation was authorized have now been withdrawn but since they have been working as Deputy Forest Rangers for long, their seniority has been determined as per the seniority of the feeding cadre of Forests and since there was no direction either from the State Government or from the High Court to revert such persons, their names have been included in the seniority list of Deputy Forest Rangers.

The opposite party No. 4 Mohd. Ehsan, Chief Conservator of Forest/Wild Life Warden, U.P., filed his separate counter-affidavit and asserted that he himself signed the seniority list and thus there was no irregularity in its finalisation.

I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the State appearing on behalf of the opposite parties contended that many other Deputy Forest Rangers have filed separate writ petitions raising various questions regarding seniority dispute and a writ petition challenging the judgment of the Service Tribunal is also pending before a Division Bench of this Court, therefore, it would have been in all propriety to club all these matters for combined hearing. No doubt, such a course would have been better but this point has been raised towards the end of the arguments being concluded, therefore, it would now be not in the fitness of affairs to abandon the issue involved in this petition. Moreover, no formal application prior to the final hearing of this petition was moved by either of the two parties or even a third party to club and combine the hearing of all such matters. In addition, it may be observed that in the claim petition before the Service Tribunal, the seniority list of 1996 was under challenge and the Services Tribunal, having scrutinized all the relevant rules, arrived at a conclusion that the determination of seniority in the said list was illegal and void. However, certain observations were made in that judgment which may be relevant for this Court also but the point is that since the said seniority list of 1.7.1996 has now been revised twice-once in 2003 and again in 2004, the said litigation issue-wise has lost its significance. It may, therefore, be held that the writ petition whereby the judgment of the Services Tribunal has been challenged has more or less been rendered to be as infructuous. However, this Court would refrain from recording any positive finding this way or that way on that score. It is certain that the seniority lists of July, 2003 and January, 2004, were not the subject-matter in issue either before the Services Tribunal or in the Writ Petition No. 972 of 1998, therefore, the argument that this writ petition should have been clubbed or heard together with the said petition should not mar the final disposal of this petition. Even no such preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State ; and the belated effort to thwart finalisation of the hearing of this writ petition was not a bona fide move. Similarly, no serious endeavour was made by the learned Counsel for the State to have moved any application for clubbing of the other writ petitions mentioned in the counter-affidavit of Mr. Bhatt. This Court has not been apprised of the prayer clause of such other writ petitions and, above all, pure question of law is involved in this petition which can certainly be determined without any impediment whatsoever from any quarter.

Adverting to the merit of the petition, this Court would like to frame the sole question of law involved in this litigation and the same can be framed as below:

Which will be the feeding cadre for determination of the seniority of the Deputy Forest Rangers?

Finding:

At the very outset, it may be observed that the Service Rules of 1951 and Seniority Rules, 1991, are attracted to the issue in hand. The Seniority Rules, 1991, were not in vogue at the time when many of the Deputy Forest Rangers had been appointed. Until 1991, service conditions including seniority of the Deputy Forest Rangers were governed by the Rules, 1951. It would be relevant first to take stock of the Seniority Rules, 1991. Rule 6 postulates as follows:

Seniority where appointments by promotion only from a single feeding cadre.-Where according to the service rules, appointments are to be made only by promotion from a single feeding cadre, seniority inter se of persons so appointed shall be the same as it was in the feeding cadre.

Explanation.-A person senior in the feeding cadre shall, even though promoted after the promotion of a person junior to him in the feeding cadre shall, in the cadre to which they are promoted, regain the seniority as it was in the feeding cadre.

Similarly, Rule 7 provides for determination of seniority where appointments by promotion are made from several feeding cadres. It provides as follows:

Seniority where appointments by promotion only from several feeding cadres.-Where according to the service rules, appointments are to be made only by promotion but from more than one feeding cadres, the seniority inter se of persons appointed on the result of any one selection shall be determined according to the date of the order of their substantive appointment in their respective feeding cadres.

Explanation.-Where the order of the substantive appointment in the feeding cadre specifies a particular back date with effect from which a person is substantively appointed, that date will be deemed to be the date of order of substantive appointment and, in other cases it will mean the date of issuance of the order:

Provided that where the pay scales or the feeding caders are different, the persons promoted from the feeding cadre having higher pay scale shall be senior to the persons promoted from the feeding cadres having lower pay scale:

Provided further that the persons appointed on the result of a subsequent selection shall be junior to the persons appointed on the result of a previous selection.

The Rule 8 deals with the seniority of appointments made by promotion and direct recruitment. It provides as follows:

Seniority where appointments by promotion and direct recruitment.-(i) Where according to the service rules appointments are made both by promotion and by direct recruitment, the seniority of persons appointed shall, subject to the provisions of the following sub-rules, be determined from the date of the order of their substantive appointments, and if two or more persons are appointed together, in the order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order:

Provided that if the appointment order specifies a particular back date, with effect from which a person is substantively appointed, that date will be deemed to be the date of order of substantive appointment and, in other cases, it will mean the date of issuance of the order:

Provided further that a candidate recruited directly may lose his seniority if he fails to join without valid reasons, when vacancy is offered to him the decision of the appointing authority as the validity of reasons, shall be final.

(2) The seniority inter se of persons appointed on the result of any one selection:

(a) through direct recruitment, shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or by the Committee, as the case may be ;

(b) by promotion, shall be as determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Rule 6 or Rule 7, as the case may be, according as the promotions are to be made from a single feeding cadre or several feeding cadres.

As is apparent from above, there are three methods of determining seniority. The first pertains to the appointment by promotion only from a single feeding cadre ; the second relates to the seniority where appointments are made by promotion from several feeding cadres; and, the third is where appointments are made by promotion and direct recruitment.

According to the Service Rules, 1951, there are two sources of recruitment to the post of Deputy Rangers-one is by promotion of foresters and the other is by direct recruitment from among candidates who hold a lower standard certificate of a college. To be specific, the provisions contained in Rule 5 deal with source of recruitment. The relevant provisions may be reproduced as below:

5 (b) Deputy Rangers:

(1) By promotion of Foresters holding High School Examination Certificate (or equivalent qualification) and considered fit to hold charge of a small range:

Provided that Foresters of tried ability and probity who were recruited to the service before 4.9.1948, would be eligible for promotion irrespective of the educational qualifications possessed by them.

Note.-Recruitment to the post of Deputy Rangers to be made entirely by promotion except to the extent to which candidates may be appointed under Clause (2) of this rule.

(2) By direct appointment from among candidates who hold a lower standard certificate of the college.

It is obvious from the above provisions that there are two sources of appointment to the post of Deputy, Ranger-one is by promotion of the Foresters and the other is by direct recruitment. In this situation, there is no question of Rules 6 and 7 of the Seniority Rules, 1991, being attracted. As mentioned above, Rule 6 of the Seniority Rules, 1991, deals with the seniority of officials where appointments were by way of promotion from a single feeding cadre and Rule 7 provides for the principle of seniority where appointments are to be made by promotion only from several feeding cadres.

Rule 8 is relevant from this case point of view and it provides that the seniority of the promotee and direct recruits would be determined from the date of the order of their substantive appointment. In the case in hand, as mentioned in Rule 5 (b) (1) and (2), there are two sources of recruitment-one by way of promotion of Foresters and the other by direct recruitment. It is immaterial as to whether as on date, any directly appointed Deputy Forest Ranger is working or not. The point is that the seniority will be determined according to Rule 8 of the Seniority Rules, 1991, coupled with the provisions of Rule 5 (b) (1) and (2) of the Service Rules, 1951. Learned Counsel appearing for the State fairly conceded that Rules, 1951 so far as the source of recruitment to the post of Deputy Forest Rangers is concerned, still holds good. Therefore, the argument that the seniority of the Deputy Forest Rangers would be determined on the basis of the single feeding cadre of Foresters is totally devoid of merit being contrary to the Service Rules, 1951 and Seniority Rules, 1991.

It was perhaps the Service Tribunal in the Claim Petition No. 395 of 1997 held as follows:

In view of the findings recorded above, I hold that the Seniority Rules of 1991 cannot affect the vested rights of the Petitioners, who have acquired a right to get their seniority determined according to the administrative instructions which were applicable at the time of their appointment/promotion on the post of Deputy Forest Rangers and their seniority should be determined in accordance with these rules/administrative instructions which were applicable before the enforcement of the seniority rules. The seniority of all those Deputy Forest Rangers, who were appointed on the post of Deputy Forest Rangers in accordance with the relevant service rules shall be determined according to their length of service on that post counted from the date of their substantive appointments and seniority of those Deputy Forest Rangers, who shall be appointed or who have been appointed after enforcement of the Seniority Rules of 1991 shall be determined according to the provisions of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules of 1991 and it is immaterial that the seniority list is prepared before or after 1991.

It is relevant to note that all these Petitioners were appointed in the year 1988 as Deputy Forest Rangers on substantive basis and therefore, they claim their seniority with effect from the date of their substantive appointments.

Induction of the officiating Deputy Forest Ranger in the seniority list with effect from the date of their officiation is absolutely illegal and contrary to the rules as the Government orders dated 26.2.1966 and 6.2.1971, which provided for appointment of training toppers as officiating Deputy Forester Rangers, have now been withdrawn as they cannot have an overriding effect upon the Service Rules of 1951, which hold good till date. The contention that after withdrawal of the said Government orders, nobody will be appointed as Deputy Forest Ranger on officiating basis is of no value as such a commitment does not and cannot validate an invalid appointment. The appointment of officiating Deputy Forest Rangers on the basis of their performance during training courses is otiose and in conflict with the Service Rules, 1951. Where there are specific rules regarding appointment and there are two feeders by promotion and by appointment through direct recruitment, the third source of appointment of officiating basis is absolutely unreasonable, unjust and discriminatory. Such a reward or a gift has no room in the Service Rules and also there is no provision for such appointees in the Seniority Rules of 1991. A question, therefore, arises that how then such officiating Deputy Forest Rangers can be equated with the substantively appointed Deputy Forest Rangers. The best performer of a training course may be a blue-eyed boy of the Principal of the Training College or any other instructor or some Governmental authority and if such a provision is allowed to stand, it besides being discriminatory would invite arbitrariness amongst the authorities. When a provision for appointment is specific, casual or unspecific method of appointment cannot be permitted to survive. Therefore, the Deputy Forest Rangers who were appointed on officiating basis consequent to their performance during training courses will have no room in the seniority list of Deputy Forest Rangers of those Deputy Forest Rangers who have been promoted and appointed on substantive basis.

Similarly, those Foresters who were superseded once by their juniors but promoted subsequently at some stage or the other cannot be placed or ranked above those juniors who have been appointed on substantive basis by way of promotion in the cadre of the Deputy Forest Rangers. An official or an officer who is not found fit to be promoted alongwith his juniors must suffer for his inefficiency or incompetency. Where there are rules for promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, only those Government employees would be benefited who are competent, capable, efficient and meritorious as compared to those who are termed to be unfit at the time of their consideration for promotion. If a superseded senior is appointed after reasonable gap of time to the higher cadre, he has to surrender so far as the seniority is concerned to his junior who has already been appointed in the higher cadre on the basis of his substantive appointment. Those who are bright, sharp and meritorious must be ranked above to those who do not believe in putting hard work with efficiency and competency. In view of the above, I am of the decisive opinion that the seniority of the Deputy Forest Rangers appointed under Rule 5 (b) (1) shall be governed by the provisions of Rule 8 of the Seniority Rules, 1991. The officiating Deputy Forest Rangers or the superseded Foresters who were promoted later to their juniors cannot be ranked equal to those Deputy Forest Rangers who were appointed on substantive basis and therefore, these substantively appointed Deputy Forest Rangers win have to be placed higher to the former two kinds of Deputy Forest Rangers.

In this view of the matter, the seniority of the feeding cadre of Foresters in which the Range Clerks were also amalgamated will not provide a legal base to their placement in the higher cadre of Deputy Forest Rangers.

The State Public Service Tribunal categorically held that the Seniority Rules of 1991, were not retrospective in effect, therefore, the Deputy Forest Rangers who were appointed prior to coming of those Rules into operation cannot be adversely affected. Also it was held by the Tribunal that the source of recruitment to the post of Deputy Forest Rangers was by way of promotion from two different cadres, i.e., by promotion and by direct recruitment. The relevant findings of the Service Tribunal at page 29 of the judgment (Annexure-S13) may be reproduced for better understanding:

from the facts and circumstances of the present claim petitions and pleadings of the parties it is evident that the post of Deputy Forest Rangers were filled by promotion from different feeding cadres and also by direct recruitment in accordance with the service rules and the order issued in the year 1977. In these circumstances, the provisions of Rule 8 of the Seniority Rules of 1991 shall be applicable and the Seniority Rules of 1991 may be applied to the Deputy Forest Rangers. From this point of view, the provisions of Rule 6 of the Seniority Rules of 1991 have been wrongly applied by the opposite parties 1 to 3 for determination of seniority of Deputy Forest Rangers. I have already held above that Seniority Rules of 1991 are not retrospective, hence they shall not apply to the Deputy Forest Rangers, who were appointed before enforcement of these rules.

At page 20 of the same judgment, the Service Tribunal observed that vested right of the Petitioners who have been appointed as Deputy Forest Rangers according to Rules cannot be taken away by the Seniority Rules of 1991, which came into force with effect from 20.3.1991, particularly when these Rules were not given retrospective effect.

Rule 10 of the Service Rules, 1951, clearly provides that the appointments by promotion under the provisions of Rule 5 (b) (1) shall be by seniority subject to rejection of unfit. It thus rules out the possibility of bringing into the seniority list of those Deputy Forest Rangers who had been superseded once on the ground of being found not fit to be promoted. Even the circulars dated 6.11.1957 and 21.9.1988 (Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition) issued by the department directed the authorities concerned to determine the eligibility of Deputy Forest Rangers for higher promotion on the basis of their substantive appointment as Deputy Forest Rangers. The Government order dated 28.8.2002 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) provides that the seniority list of Deputy Forest Rangers shall be determined according to Rules 7 and 8 of the Seniority Rules, 1991 which, in fact, was in consonance with the sources of recruitment. Why then, the Principal Conservator of forests violated this Government order which was in conformity with the Rules and included in the seniority list in question the names of all those Deputy Forest Rangers who had not been appointed substantively in accordance with Rule 5 (b) (1)? Apparently thus, the Principal Conservator of Forest and the Conservator of Forest who had drawn the list in question have committed blunder by violating not only the rules but also the aforesaid Government order. These officers are answerable to the Government and must explain as to why they distorted the entire exercise and included the officiating Deputy Forest Rangers and the superseded Deputy Forest Rangers by placing them in the seniority list on the basis of their seniority of the feeding cadre of Foresters/Range Clerks. The guilty officers must explain their conduct of distorting the rules and creating a mess as a result of which the eligible Deputy Forest Rangers appointed on substantive basis have been deprived for long of their next higher promotion. The court would express its anguish on their mis-conduct of being unfair to the eligible officers. This Court in its order dated 16.9.2003, clearly indicated that the officiating Deputy Forest Rangers would not be placed anywhere in the seniority so as to jeopardize the claim of regularly promoted incumbents. The relevant observations may be quoted as below:

It is difficult to subscribe to the view that the period of officiating promotion, ad hoc promotion or long-term officiation on the post of Deputy Ranger would be counted for the purpose of seniority against the claim of regularly promoted incumbents. Even if the order of 1977 as referred to earlier authorizes the Government or the departmental authorities to nominate the Foresters who secured first position in training and the examination as Deputy Rangers, it does not confer any right upon such officiating Deputy Rangers to acquire seniority with effect from the dates they were appointed as officiating Deputy Rangers. The said order specifically postulates that the seniority between a Deputy Ranger appointed on the basis of his seniority-cum-merit and an officiating Deputy Ranger who secured first position in the Foresters Training School shall be determined with, effect from the date of regularization on the post of Forester. It is thus clear that even the said order of the Government does not change the position of officiating Deputy Rangers and rank them above the regularly promoted incumbents. If the view point of the opposite parties is accepted, it will create chaotic condition, therefore, the impugned seniority list would be termed to be unreasonable and cannot be justified-the same being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Court in view of the clear cut observations made above is of the view that the seniority list dated 5.1.2004, has been deliberately prepared contrary to the rules and it amounts to contempt of court. The officer or the officers who have willfully mis-conducted themselves by preparing the seniority list under challenge on the basis of single feeding cadre under Rule 6 of the Service Rules, 1991, deserve to be snubbed and scolded.

As said above, Rule 8 was appropriate rule under which the seniority should have been fixed on the basis of substantive appointment.

It is also noteworthy that the cadre of Deputy Forest Rangers is circle-wise, whereas the cadre of Forest Rangers is that of State level. The eligibility of Deputy Forest Rangers, therefore, becomes relevant. The date of substantive promotion as Deputy Forest Rangers being the only valid criteria for drawing the seniority list of Deputy Forest Rangers conforms to the principle of propriety and validity. In other words, the well-settled principle of seniority is the date of substantive appointment and it is also a logical basis of determining seniority in a particular cadre.

When seniority of persons from several feeding cadres is combined, the date of substantive appointments in the respective cadre becomes significant and a person appointed as a result of a substantive selection or superseded earlier becomes junior to the person appointed on the result of a previous selection. This view is supported from the proviso appended to Rule 7 of the Seniority Rules, 1991.

In view of the discussions made above, I am of the decisive opinion that this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned seniority list dated 5.1.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) being in conflict with the Rules is hereby quashed. A writ of certiorari is issued accordingly.

A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to recast the seniority list dated 23.7.2003 by dropping those Deputy Forest Rangers from it who were working on officiating basis. The seniority of superseded Foresters/Range Clerks who were subsequently promoted, will be reckoned with effect from the date they were substantively appointed in the cadre of Deputy Forest Rangers on promotion and not with effect from the date of their appointment in the feeding cadre. It is made clear that the list of Deputy Forest Rangers shall strictly conform to Rule 8 of the Service Rules, 1991, coupled with Rule 5 (b) (1) of the Service Rules, 1951. Also it is made clear that Rule 6 of the Seniority Rules, 1991, shall not be taken recourse to while determining the seniority of the Deputy Forest Rangers.