In Service Jurisprudence, Service Rules Will Prevail Over Conflicting Government Resolutions : Supreme Court

In Service Jurisprudence, Services Rules, which have a statutory effect will prevail and government resolutions can’t be conflict with the rules, the Supreme Court reiterated recently.

“In service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail. There can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with the same”, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka highlighted.

The Court was considering a dispute between direct recruits and promotees with regard to their seniority. It held that the seniority of persons selected for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest by nomination would be counted from the date appointment order after successful completion of training.

Factual Background

The method of recruitment for the ACF post was twofold – nomination (direct appointment) and promotion. Recruits to ACF by promotion assume charge from the day they are promoted to the said post and are not required to undergo two years of ACF training and one year of field training, which is compulsory for persons appointed by nomination.

Instead of issuing appointment orders appointing the Appellants on probation, they were sent to pre-appointment training.

The appellants filed an application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for declaration that their appointment as ACF be considered from the date of commencement of the training. Partly allowing the application, the Tribunal declared that the appellants will be entitled for appointment as ACF from the commencement of their training. The review application filed by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal was dismissed.

Subsequently, the Government passed a Resolution resolving that successful completion of training period would be considered as regular service from the date of inception of training for all service purposes. The Resolution also provided that the ACF appointed by nomination shall be considered from the initial date of their training and the seniority will be considered accordingly.

In the meanwhile, Respondent nos. 4 to 9 filed the writ petition before the High Court, both against the appellants as well as against the Government of Maharashtra.

These private respondents claimed that they were appointed as Range Forest Officers in 1987 to 1990 and were promoted to the post of ACF in 2014-2015. Their grievance was that though they were promoted as ACF before the appellants, they were shown as junior to the appellants in the seniority list of ACF.

Their case was that the 1984 Rules stipulated that the period spent on training at the Government Forest College by directly appointed ACF won’t be counted towards the requisite period of service for purposes of appointment to the cadre of DFO.

The High Court held that Respondent nos. 4 to 9 won’t be affected by the Tribunal’s order to the extent of directing payment of salary and the pay scale to the appellants from the date of initiation of the training period, as the Respondents’ right would only be affected while considering the seniority vis-à-vis promotion to the post of DFO. On the aspect of fixation of seniority, it was opined that the persons selected for the post of ACF by nomination shall be counted from the date of issuance of appointment order after successful completion of training qua the person appointed to ACF by promotion. It went through the 1984 Rules as well as the Maharashtra Forest Service, Group A (Junior Scale) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998.

Government Resolutions Not Statutory Rule, SC

The Bench stated as that as per the Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules, the appointment to the post is different from the recruitment process, which starts with the commencement of training.

“The Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules, Thus, what is envisaged is that the appointment is different from the recruitment process, which starts with the commencement of training. There can be possibilities of a candidate not completing the training satisfactorily, thereby resulting in the candidate’s removal on probation. Such probation period can also be extended to see whether a candidate improves in performance. (Hence, even if the Government Resolution dated 25.01.1990 upgraded the post 15 of ACF from Class II to Class I, the Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules will continue to hold valid in determining the period of service.)”

The Government resolutions issued by the Administrative Department cannot have the status of a statutory rule although such resolutions may have their own effect, the Court added.

Agreeing with the High Court’s view, the Court said that the resolutions were passed so that a person who successfully completes the training effectively gets the monetary compensation and is not deprived of the same.

“It appears to us that the High Court’s view is the correct view. The resolutions have been passed in the context that the person who successfully completes the training effectively gets the monetary compensation for his training period and is not deprived of the same. This cannot amount to giving seniority from the date of initial recruitment process to determine inter se seniority, when the Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules makes the date of appointment for direct recruits clear. This is also in the background that while the direct appointees have no experience in the field having been freshly recruited, the promotees have been doing the task.”

The Bench then proceeded to opine that the Rules over prevail over the government resolutions.

“On having come to the conclusion that the Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules, and the resolutions neither speaking about promotion to the post of DFO nor about seniority conclusively, the Proviso would operate with full force. We are thus of the clear view that the applicable Rules leave no ambiguity in the matter and must prevail.”

Case Title: Ashok Ram Parhad & Ors Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. | Civil Appeal No.822 Of 2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Service Law - Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules-In service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail-There can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with the same - Para 25

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment