Case: NAND KUMAR MANJHI AND ANR, ETC Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR ETC

The Respondent No. 1 – State of Bihar published an advertisement on 24.07.1985 inviting applications for filling up 40 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests ( ?ACF?) through direct recruitment under the Bihar Forest Service Rules,the basis of the examination conducted in December 1985 and viva voce, the Bihar Public Service Commission ( ?the Commission?) prepared a list of successfulthe recommendations of the Commission, the posts of ACFs advertised were filled up by the State vide Notification dated 14.12.1987. On filling up of the advertised posts, the Merit List gotOn 15.02.1988, the State Government sought the names of 13 successful candidates from the Commission, as per the Merit List prepared pursuant to the selection against the 1985Commission vide letter dated 20.02.1988 recommended the names of 12 candidates, which included the names of the Appellants, for appointment asOn 12.06.1987, the State Government sent a requisition to initiate the process for appointment of 40 more ACFs through directto the requisition made by the State on 12.06.1987, a fresh Advertisement for 40 posts of ACFs through direct recruitment was published by the Commission on 20.12.1987. The Commission conducted written examination in SeptemberThe State promoted 30 Range Officers, including Respondent Nos. 21¬32The Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953 were amended to insert Rule 3(aa) on 26.12.1989 with retrospective effect. As per Rule 3(aa), Range Officers of Forests who have passed the Ranger Course after securing Honours shall be deemed to be eligible to be appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forests, and shall be treated as direct3(aa) is reproducedThe appointments of the service shall ordinarily be made by ¬…The Range Officer of Forest, who passes the Ranger Course securing Honours shall be eligible for admission to the 2nd year/2 (two) years of State Forest Service Course in Forestry conducted by Government of India. They shall be treated as direct recruit to the Bihar Forest Service Cadre (as Assistant Conservator of Forests) and the provisions as laid down in the Rule 29, shall be applicable to these selected Range Officers ofThe State published a final Seniority List on 24.07.1989, wherein the ACFs who were promoted on 06.10.1987 and 23.11.1987, were placed above the Direct Recruits appointed onThe Seniority List came to be challenged by the Direct Recruits appointed on 14.12.1987 by way of CWJC No. 8305 of 1989 before the Patna HighAfter bifurcation of the State of Bihar and creation of the State of Jharkhand, the validity of the appointments of the Appellants and other ACFs appointed by the State on 13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989 was discussed at different levels during President?s Rule in Bihar, as is apparent from the File Notings placed onLaw Department was of the opinion that these appointments were irregular since they were appointed purportedly against the advertisement of 1985, even though the Select List had got exhausted. It was however observed that cancellation of their appointment would result in litigation, since the appointments were made on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission. Furthermore, the appointees had by now served for about 17 years. It was suggested that such appointments may be regularised since they were irregular, but notA perusal of letter dated 15.07.2006 addressed by the Additional Secretary to the Government to the Secretary, Bihar Legislative Assembly indicates that the proposal was approved, and the ?…State Government after Enquiry regularised these appointments and closed thisOn 09.03.2010, shadow posts were created by the State since the ?…working force [was] in excess than created force…sinceObjections were raised by the Appellants regarding their placement in the Seniority List. A High¬Level Scrutiny Committee was constituted by the State to look into their grievances. The High¬Level Scrutiny Committee rejected the objections raised by theThe Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by the common Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the learned SingleWrit Petitions filed by the Appellants herein (CWJC Nos.10925, 11160 and 11337 of 2010) were dismissed. The learned Single Judge held) The Appellants were rightly placed at the bottom of the Seniority List since their initial appointments on 13.04.1988, were purportedly from the list of candidates prepared for the 1985 advertisement. Since the appointment of the Appellants was beyond the 40 advertised vacancies, it was completelyThe Appellants persuaded the State to appoint them, which was a rank illegality, which cannot be termed just as a mere irregularity, or minor deviation from theThe Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed by a common Judgment dated 10.11.2014, wherein it was held) The Appellants cannot claim seniority on the principle of continuous officiation from the date of their appointment i.e. 13.04.1988. The seniority accorded to them from the date of their regularisation in the cadre i.e. 03.10.2005, does not call for any interference in exercise of the powers of judicialThe appointment of the Appellants was illegal, and in contravention of all canons of service jurisprudence. It was based on the generosity of therecruitment process commenced pursuant to the 1985 Advertisement for 40 posts of ACFs, was completed on the appointments made onThe recruitment process having been completed, there was no occasion for the State to make any further appointments pursuant to the 1985The Appellants were persons who had not been selected or recommended by the Commission, nor were they wait¬ listedThe appointment of the Appellants ought to be considered nonThe State Government vide Notification dated 04.10.2010 regularised their services w.e.f. 03.10.2005.The Appellants filed the present Special Leave Petitions to challenge the common Impugned Judgment dated 10.11.2014 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court.

Reasoning: In the aforesaid background facts, the Patna High Court was fully justified in dismissing the Writ Petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals filed by theHigh Court rightly held that the seniority of the Appellants can be reckoned only from the date of their regularisation in service w.e.f. 03.10.2005, and not from the date of their initial appointment on 13.04.1988, as claimed by them. The Appellants had secured an illegal appointment in 1988 through the back¬ door, which was wholly illegal and de hors the Statutory Rules. Their services came to be regularised only on 03.10.2005. As per Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953 the seniority of officers shall be determined with reference to the date of their substantive appointment to the service. Hence, the claim for seniority from the date of their initial appointment was wholly untenable, misconceived, and contrary to statutory Rules.