Allowed

Virendra Singh Krishnia and Anr. v. R C S a T and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2014CW/13284/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal's order granting seniority benefits to a private respondent. The Court held the respondent was ineligible for promotion as Ranger due to lacking the mandatory 10 years of total service required under Rule 21 of the Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, despite completing 5 years as a Forester.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal and granting seniority to the private respondent is set aside; writ petition allowed.

Virendra Singh Krishnia and Anr. Vs R C S a T and… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13284/2013

¶4

Virendra Singh Krishnia & Anr.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.

¶7

DATE OF ORDER : 07/01/2014

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶9

Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, for petitioners Mr. B.L. Choudhary, for respondent/s

¶10

¶11

With the consent of parties, writ petition is heard finally.

¶12

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the private respondent.

¶13

The controversy before the Tribunal was regarding seniority on the post of Ranger. The Tribunal set aside the seniority list dated 21.04.2010 and 15.10.2012 with the direction to correct the seniority list by placing the respondent above petitioner.

¶14

It is stated that private respondent was initially appointed as Forester. He appeared in Forester Training School examination and stood at No.1. He was given appointment on the post of Ranger vide order dated 11.04.1994. It is by virtue

¶15

¶16

of Rule 21 of Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (in short “Rules” ). The Tribunal erroneously considered it to be a case of promotion of the private respondent to the post of Ranger and accordingly directed to place the respondent above petitioner in the seniority list. The petitioner was infact directly recruited and appointed on the post of Ranger in the year 1994. It is submitted that order of the Tribunal is based on erroneous interpretation of Rule 21 of the Rules. The petitioner had not put in 10 years of service so as to become eligible for promotion under Rule 21 of the Rules. He was infact recruited and appointed on the post of Ranger as per Rule 21 (1) of the Rules, but the learned Tribunal erroneously considered his case under Rule 21(2). The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, submits that petitioner was promoted on the post of Ranger as he stood at No.1 in Forester Training School Examination. It was in reference to Rule 21(2) of the Rules. The Tribunal thus rightly issued direction for placing the private respondent above the petitioner in the seniority list.

¶18

I have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

¶19

The whole controversy is in reference to Rule 21 of the

¶20

¶21

Rules thus aforesaid rule is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

¶22

“ 21. The selection of Forest Subordinates already in Government Service for Rangers Grade I .- A member of Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service already in Government Service, may be deputed by the State Government for training, without being required to appear before the Commission for interview provided that-

¶23

(1) he has put in at least 5 years of service, or has stood first at a State Foresters Training School;

¶24

(2) his age does not exceed 30 years on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications by the Commission;

¶25

(3) he has passed the competitive examination conducted by the Commission under rule 20; and

¶26

(4) he has passed the Secondary or equivalent examination in case he is sent for two years training course or has passed the Intermediate Science or equivalent examination in case he is sent for one year's training course.”

¶27

Note :-(1) Forest Subordinate will not be taken to mean a member of the ministerial staff.

¶28

(2) A Forester standing first in the final examination of a State Foresters Training School shall be exempted from the conditions regarding age limit and the qualifying examination vide sub-rules (ii) and (iii) respectively if he has less than 10 years of service. In regard to a Forester

¶29

¶30

standing first at a Foresters School, and who has put in more than 10 years of service, the intention is that he may be promoted as a Ranger without having to qualify in the Rangers Course if 5 years of the total service have been spent as a Forester.”

¶31

The perusal of rule quoted above reveals that if a member of service has put in ten years service and stood first at Forester Training School, then he may be promoted as Ranger. It is subject to completion of 10 years of service and out of which 5 years should be as a Forester. The private respondent has completed 7 years of service as Forester thus he is short by three years of service to become entitled for promotion. The learned Tribunal ignored the conditions of subrule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules. The Forester standing first in Forester School Examination and who has put in 10 years of service, can be promoted as Ranger without qualifying Ranger course, if he is having service of five years as Forester. The two conditions are required to be satisfied. The first is of 10 years service and other is 5 years as Forester, out of total service. The respondent has not completed 10 years of service, though 5 years as Forester has completed. He accordingly satisfied second condition and not the first condition so as to be considered for promotion. If order dated 11.04.1994 at Annexure-1 is looked into, therein also private respondent has

¶32

¶33

been recommended for appointment as Ranger and not for promotion. In view of the above, the Tribunal has wrongly considered the case of the private respondent to be of promotion on the post of Ranger so as to grant him benefit of seniority. The impugned order of the Tribunal thus cannot be allowed to stand, rather it is set aside.

¶34

The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid. It disposes of application for vacation of the stay order as well as stay application.

¶35

FRBOHRA/13284CWP2013.doc

¶36

Certificate:

¶37

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶38

FATEH RAJ BOHRA, Sr. P.A.

Virendra Singh Krishnia and Anr. v. R C S a T and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh Krishnia and Anr. v. R C S a T and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohitash Singh and Anr. Vs Raj University of Health

Surendra Singh Choudhary Vs State and Ors.

Gulam Rasool Vs State of Raj andANR

Raghuveer Singh Sahiwala Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Gahdsi Ram Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Kamla Vs State of Raj and Ors.