IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application No. 437 of 2008 Delay Condonation Appln. 2325 / 2008 On behalf of the applicant / petitioner Kailash Chandra Suyal ...…………. Review Applicant In Writ Petition No. 229 of 2006 (S/S) Kailash Chandra Suyal S/o Sri D.N. Suyal Presently working as Deputy Forest Ranger Nagar Palika Range, Nainital Forest Division, Nainital R/o Village & Post Chopra, District Nainital. ...…………. Applicant / Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary Forest Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Uttarakhand, Camp Office Dehradun. 3. Chief Conservator of Forest Human Resource Development and Administrative Management, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 4. Conservator of Forest South Kumaun circle, Uttaranchal, Nainital. ...…………. Respondents 2 Mr. A.R. Masoodi, learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is delay Condonation Application No. 2325 of 2008, moved on behalf of the applicant / petitioner, in moving the review Application No. 437 of 2008, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 10.12.2007, passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 229 (S/S) of 2006, whereby said writ petitions is disposed of along with connected matters, with the direction that the authorities concerned shall include the name of the applicant / petitioner in the seniority list from the date the petitioners are substantively appointed or treated to have been substantively appointed as Deputy Forest Rangers. 2) Heard and perused the affidavit accompanying the application. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay is condoned. 3) Also, heard learned counsel for the parties, on review application. 4) Learned counsel for the review applicant / petitioner Kailash Chandra Suyal drew attention of this Court to Rule 5 of the U.P. Subordinate Forest (Rangers, Deputy Rangers and Foresters) Service Rules, 1951 (copy Annexure –3 to the writ petition), which reads as under: “5. Source of Recruitment – Recruitment to the service shall be made from the following sources : (a) Forest Rangers – 3 (1) By promotion of Deputy Rangers holding High School Examination Certificate (or equivalent qualification) and considered fit to hold charge of an important range. Not more than fifty per cent of the total number of posts of Forest Rangers may be filled by promotion. (2) By direct appointment of candidates who have been selected through the commission in the manner prescribed in Appendix A to these rules for undergoing a course of instruction in the college and who have obtained the higher standard certificate after two years training therein. (b) Deputy Rangers – (1) By promotion of Foresters holding High School Examination Certificate (or equivalent qualification) and considered fit to hold charge of small range. Note –Recruitment to the post of Deputy Rangers will be made entirely by promotion except to the extent to which candidates may be appointed under clause (2) of this rule. (2) By direct direct appointment from amongst candidates who hold a lower standard certificate of the college. (c) Foresters – (1) By promotion of – (i) forest guards and other subordinates of long and meritorious service, and 4 holding the Hindustani Middle Examination certificates; (ii) Younger forest guards and other subordinates holding High School Examination Certificate (or equivalent qualification). Note – Not more than fifty per cent of the total number of posts of Foresters may be filled by promotion. (2) By direct appointment of candidates who hold the High School Examination Certificate (or equivalent qualification). Note –Procedure regarding training of subordinates at the State Forest Training Class given in the Forest Manual.” On the basis of the above sub-clause (2) of Clause (b) of Rule 5(1), attention of this Court is drawn to Para 6 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, and it is pointed out that this Court has wrongly mentioned that there is no direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Forest Rangers which is infact provided in sub-clause (2) of Clause (b) of the rule, quoted above. 5) Having examined the Rule, this Court finds that sentence which reads ‘It is also not disputed that there is no direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Forest Ranger and the feeding cadre is only that of the Foresters’ appears to have been mentioned inadvertently, and the same requires to be deleted. 5 6) Learned counsel for the review applicant / petitioner further contended that the Court in its operative portion of the judgment sought to be reviewed, should clarify that the seniority should be determined in the light of Rule 8 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, as adopted by the State of Uttarakhand, in its rules of 2002, as the appointments to the post of Deputy Forest Rangers are to be made by two sources namely, promotion as well as direct recruitment. This Court agrees that where the sources are by promotion as well as by direct recruitment, seniority is to be determined under Rule 8 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991. 7) Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant rules, this review application is disposed of with the direction that from Para 6 of the judgment and order dated 10.12.2007, sentence ‘It is also not disputed that there is no direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Forest Ranger and feeding cadre is only that of the Foresters’ be deleted, and in the operative portion of the judgment and order, at the end of Para 12, following sentence, after expression ‘Deputy forest Rangers’ be added – ‘as provided in Rule 8 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules 1991, and adopted in Uttaranchal Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002’. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. May 12, 2008. H.Negi