CW 9865/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.9865/2009 Rajendra S. Nathawat Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 19/08/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Ashok Gaur, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed by petitioner presently holding post of Deputy Conservator of Forest (“DCF”) & a member of Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 (“Rules, 1962”) with the grievance that when he joined service as Assistant Conservator of Forest (“ACF”) on the basis of selection through Rajasthan Public Service Commission (“PSC”) in the year 1980-81, respondents have not taken note of R.35(3) of Rules, 1962 while publication of seniority list. In support, Counsel has relied upon the opinion expressed by Department of Personnel, to convince this Court that seniority of the cadre of ACF earlier published by respondents, being not in consonance with R.35(3) of Rules, therefore, is required to be re-drawn. 25 posts of ACF included in Schedule of Rules, 1962 were advertised by PSC and after undergoing process of selection, petitioner was also declared successful and CW 9865/09 //2// recommended by PSC for training on 22/01/81. However, out of 25 candidates recommended by PSC, State Government found only 22 candidates fit & eligible, who were sent for training on 14/07/81 while remaining three including petitioner were later on recommended on 27/07/81 for training to Indian Forest College, Dehradun - after completion whereof, petitioner was appointed as ACF on 23/04/84. Provisional seniority list of the cadre of ACF was published on 13/09/93, to which, as it appears from material on record, petitioner never raised any objection about his placement in the seniority list; and only one Shri Anil Kapoor (ACF) submitted objection – taking note whereof, final seniority list of ACF was published, as informed, in the year 1994, itself and on the basis of final seniority list of1994, petitioner was further promoted on substantive basis as DCF against quota of 1998-99 and provisional seniority of the cadre of DCF as on 01/01/2008 was published on 22/05/08 (Ann.9) which was finalised on 22/06/09 (Ann.13) after taking note of objections. Thereafter further provisional seniority list was published on 03/07/09. Counsel submits that department of CW 9865/09 //3// personnel in the year 1996 expressed its opinion to draw seniority list in terms of R. 35(3) of Rules, 1962, which according to him has not been properly carried out by department of forest while publishing final seniority of the cadre of ACF, in which petitioner entered into service of April, 1984. Counsel further submits that R.35(3) of Rules, 1962 clearly contemplates to prepare inter-se seniority list of ACF as per their order of merit having been placed upon being qualified for training duly recommended by PSC in course of process of selection to the post of ACF, which respondents were under legal obligation to carry out while publication of seniority list in August, 1993 – absence whereof has resulted in causing prejudice to his right of fair consideration for promotion to higher post of DCF and further to the post of Indian Forest Service, being seriously jeopardized. This Court does not find any substance in aforesaid submission for the reason that post of ACF is lowest in Service Rules, 1962 - seniority whereof has to be prepared U/r 35 of Rules, 1962; and provisional seniority list CW 9865/09 //4// was published on 13/08/93 & duly finalised as per petitioner's own saying in 1994 and taking note whereof, he was further promoted as DCF on substantive basis against quota of 1998-99 and as per the year of substantive appointment /promotion to the post of DCF, provisional seniority was published on 02/05/08 (Ann.9), further finalised on 22/06/09 (Ann.13). It is not the case of petitioner that when provisional seniority list of ACF was published way back on 13/08/93, such objection was ever raised by him, which he is now asserting after such a belated stage; inasmuch as after provisional seniority list dt. 13/08/93 was finalised in 1994 - on the basis of his placement in the seniority, ibid, he was further substantively promoted as DFC against quota of 1998-99 after holding postof DCF on substantive basis for more than a decade, certainly rights have been conferred in favour of his co-incumbents, which in the opinion of this Court, after more than about two decades of his entry into service cannot now be divested so as to unsettle long standing seniority having attained finality culminating into conferment of rights for further promotions. CW 9865/09 //5// That apart, this Court does not find substance in the next submission made that opinion of the department of personnel expressed to re-draw the seniority list U/r 35 (3) of Rules, 1962 has not been taken note of by department of Forest. Merely because department of personnel has given its opinion at a later point of time, that would not be of binding character to re-draw the long standing seniority after a lapse of more than two decades, as asserted by petitioner, while such long standing seniority has conferred rights in favour of officers working in the cadre of ACF, it would not be in any manner advisable, as asserted by him, to re-draw the seniority as prayed for by him at such a belated stage. In the entire gamut of facts (supra), this Court does not find justification to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/ 9865CW09-Aug19SnrtyDs.doc