Judgment:
1. The dispute involved in this case is regarding seniority between the applicant and the private respondents No. 7 and 8 in the cadre of Forest Ranger, A&N Administration, which is a vital property of the Government servant for advancement of the careers in service. The case of the applicant is that in pursuance of the advertisement of a course published in Daily Telegrams dated 24.8.1985, Annexure 'A' to the application, for selection of the local candidates for undergoing training for one year Forest Rangers Training course commencing from 1.1.1986 in Southern Forest Ranger's College, Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu) the applicant applied for the same and he was selected for such training. Thereafter he is B.Sc and he was sent for training for one year with effect from 1.1.1986 after executing a bond to serve the A&N Administration for a period of five years. Accordingly, the applicant successfully completed the training of one year and thereafter on successful completion of the training of Rangers course for the year of 1986 the applicant had been appointed as Officiating Forest Ranger on temporary establishment at Rs. 1400/per month plus other allowances in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300/ with effect from 1.1.1987. In the said appointment letter dated 23.2.1987, Annexure 'C' it has been stipulated that the Chief Conservator of Forests had further been pleased to treat the period of his journey in between the date of relief from the training college Coimbatore and date of joining duty in DFA(SA)'s office i.e., from 1.1.87 to 11.1.87 as duty under FR9(6)(b)(ii) and he will be entitled to get the pay as Forest Ranger from 1.1.87. It has been alleged by the applicant that private respondents No. 7 and 8 are undergraduates and they were also selected for two years' training of the Rangers course in the year of 1985, as per Annexure 'R11' of the reply of the respondent No. 5 and they also successfully completed training of two years. On completion of the training the private respondents No. 7 and 8 were appointed as Forest Rangers in A&N Administration with effect from 1.5.87 vide letter dated 8.6.87, Annexure 'D' to the application. Thereafter the respondents published the seniority list of Forest Rangers vide letter dated 476.7.89, Annexure 'E' to the application and in the said seniority list the position of the applicant was shown at Sl. No. 18, whereas the private respondents No. 7 & 8 were shown at Sl. Nos. 19 and 21 as per date of appointments in the cadre of Forest Rangers. It is alleged by the applicant that the official respondents suddenly to the prejudice of the applicant had issued order dated 11.11.91 (Annexure 'F') antedating the date ,of initial appointment of the applicant and private respondents Nos. 7 and 8 retrospectively and the date of applicant and the private respondents No. 7 & 8 in the cadre of Forest Rangers were ordered to be as on 1.1.86 and on 1.5.85 in place of 1.1.87 and 1.5.87 respectively and thereafter, revised seniority list was published vide order dated 29.1.92 (Annexure 'G'). Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said change of position in the seniority list as per letter dated 29.1.92, Annexure 'G' to the application, the applicant preferred representation to the higher authority vide representation dated 15.3.1992, Annexure 'H' to the application. But the respondents did not dispose of the representation (Annexure 'H'). Thereafter the applicant made a further representation to the higher authorities. Ultimately the respondent No. 2 rejected the representation of the applicant by an order dated 21.8.97, Annexure 'K' to the application stating inter alia that the Trainees of Forest Rangers Colleges were treated as "in service Trainees" and they are entitled to pay and allowances for the training period instead of stipend in terms of the Government of India decision and accordingly they were allowed the pay and allowances as admissible to the Forest Rangers during the training period instead of stipend and since the applicant had taken all financial benefits of the training period and training period was treated as "in service," the private respondents were rightly shown to be senior to the applicant in the seniority list dated 29.1.92, Annexure 'G' to the application.
2. It is also alleged by the applicant the during the pendency of the case the respondents sent a draft of Rs. 11,001/- to him towards his pay and allowances for the training period in the Forest Rangers College i.e., 1.1.86 to 31.12.86 vide letter dated 29.12.98, Annexure 'S5' to the rejoinder of the applicant, but the applicant returned the said draft towards the payment of pay and allowances stating that the matter is subjudice and hence the statement made in the memo dated 21.8.97, Annexure 'K' to the application, that the applicant had already received the financial benefit is not correct. It is also stated by the applicant that during the pendency of the application the private respondents No. 7 and 8 were regularly promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests on 7.6.99 vide Annexure 'S/6' of the rejoinder to the reply. So, the claim of the applicant, in short, is that seniority of the applicant vis-a-vis the private respondents is to be counted from the date of their initial appointment in the posts of Ranger and not from the date of joining in the Ranger's College for training, but the respondents arbitrarily and illegally had taken into account the period of training in Rangers' Colleges for seniority.
3. The official respondents and private respondents No. 7 and 8 have filed written replies, seperately denying the allegations of the applicant made in the application. It is stated by them inter alia in the reply that as per recruitment rule, (Annexure 'R/1' to the reply) the posts of Forest Rangers in the Forest Department of A&N Islands are to be filled up 50% by promotion from Deputy Rangers and 50% by direct recruitment. In case suitable candidates are not available for promotion, the posts will be filled up 100% by direct recruitment. For direct recruitment, the educational qualification required is B.Sc Part I or its equivalent. For direct recruitment, candidates are required to appear in the competitive test. All selected direct recruits will have to successfully complete the prescribed period of training in Forestry in the Rangers Colleges. But in the past, the candidates selected in the competitive test were sent for training with a stipend of Rs. 300/- per month by the Andaman Forest Department and in addition, the travelling expenses of ship fare and train fare for the forward and return journeys of the candidates was also met by the Forest Department as per letter No. F. 17(E)33 dated 27.4.85, Annexure 'R/11' to the reply.
4. Under the rules, on successful completion of the training, the candidates were to report back to the Forest Department and appointed as Forest Ranger in the time scale of pay with effect from the date following the completion of the training. The period of journey after completion of the training from College to the place of posting as Forest Ranger was treated to be as on duty under FR 9(6)(b)(ii).
5. In April, 1985 the private respondents were selected for Forest Rangers training at Kurseong and the private respondents No. 7 and 8 who stood first and second respectively in older of merit and they were deputed to undergo training in the Forestry in the Eastern Forest Rangers College, Kurseong vide Annexure 'R/III' to the reply and accordingly they reported to the College on 1.5.85 and successfully completed the training on 30.4.87. After completion of the training, they reported back to the Forest Department on 16.5.87. The transit period of journey from 1.5.87 to 15.5.87. was treated as on duty in terms of FR 9(6)(b)(ii) and were given appointment as Forest Rangers with effect from 1.5.87 vide letter dated 8.6.87, Annexure 'R/V' to the reply, whereas the applicant Shri Thomas Verghese stood first in the competitive test and was deputed to undergo training for one year and he joined the College on 1.1.86 and completed one year training on 31.12.86 and he reported back to the Forest Department on 12.1.87. The transit period of his journey from 1.1.87 to 11.1.87 was treated as on duty in terms of the FR mentioned above and he was appointed as Forest Rangers with effect 1.1.87 vide order dated 23.2.87, Annexure 'R/V'.
So, the private respondents, Shri S.K. Thomas and Shri P.K. Paul were selected and deputed to undergo training prior to the applicant, Shri Thomas Verghese and they could complete the training four months after completion of the training by the applicant as the former two were deputed for two years training while the later was deputed for one year training. Thereafter the matter regarding the period of training of Forest Rangers and Assistant Conservator of Forests was treated as "in service training" and they were allowed the salary of the post instead of stipend, which was under the consideration of the Government of India right from 1980 and accordingly, the Deputy Inspector General of Forest, Government of India, New Delhi by a letter dated 19.6.81 requested all State and Union Territories to examine the question of treating trainees as "in service trainees" so as to enable them to draw their full pay and allowances (Vide Annexure 'R/VI' to the reply) and accordingly the A&N Administration recommended the case to the Government of India for treating the stipendiary training as in service training vide letter dated 8.12.81, Annexure 'R/VII' to the reply and the Government of India by a letter dated 28.6.84 intimated that it has been decided that the trainees in the State Forest Service Colleges functioning under the aegis of Forest Research Institute and Colleges, Dehra Dun will be treated as in service trainees and therefore, the trainees as such will have to be paid pay and allowances for the training period instead of stipend by the sponsoring States/Union Territories. Accordingly, the Lt. Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, passed an order on 7.11.84 and 5.4.87 to treat the training period of Asstt. Conservator of Forests and Forest Rangers as in service vide letter marked Annexure 'IX' and that order has been implemented. Similarly the case of the Forest Rangers who have had undergone stipendiary training in forestry since 1980 onwards were also considered by the competent authority while examining the appeal submitted Shri S.K. Thomas and Shri P.K. Paul, Forest Rangers to the Lt. Governors to treat their training period as in service and to pay them pay and allowances and in disposing of the said appeal the Asstt.
Secretary (Forest) vide his letter dated 5.11.90, Annexure 'R/X' communicated the decision of the appellate authority, directing the Department that the cases pertaining to such training may be decided in accordance with the instructions of the Government of India, under intimating to the Administration and accordingly the training period was treated as in service for all purposes and they were paid arrears of pay and allowances like the petitioner and their the period of journey from 1.1.87 to 11.1.87 was treated as on duty in terms of FR 9(6)(b)(ii) and they were appointed as Forest Rangers with effect from 1.1.87 vide notification 23.2.87, Annexure 'R/V. Since the private respondents, Shri S.K. Thomas and Shri P.K. Paul were selected and deputed to undergo the training the Forestry 8 months earlier than that of the applicant, they could complete the training 4 months after completion of the training by the applicant as the former two were deputed for two years training while the later was deputed for one year training. Accordingly, respondents No. 7 and 8, applicant and other similarly situated persons were paid salary and allowances for the training period. It is stated by the respondents that the in terse seniority of Forest Rangers circulated earlier was revised as on 1.1.92 vide order dated 29.1.92 (Annexure 'G') on the basis of treating the training as in service training, i.e., the date of joining the training College is taken as the date of reporting for duty to the post of Forest Rangers in the case of direct recruits and date of promotion in the case of promotees. In the revised interse seniority list, the name of the applicant is shown at Sl. No. 15 and the private respondents No.7 and 8 were shown at Sl. Nos. 13 and 14 respectively and the applicant did not protest against the said revised seniority (Annexure 'G') but accepted the benefit of such refixation of seniority and requested to pay remaining arrears of pay and allowances for the period of training immediately vide letter dated 4.6.94. He raised objection to the revised fixation of seniority after a lapse of two years on 5.12.94, Annexure 'R/XIX'. While his representation was under consideration, he made an appeal to the Lt. Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands on 7.10.96 and his appeal has been disposed of by the Lt. Governor and decision was communicated to his vide letter dated 21.8.97, Annexure 'R/XX' which is Annexure 'K' to the application. In this connection the orders of the High Court of Calcutta in C.O. No. 153(W) of 1996 (Lalit Narayan v. Union of India and Ors.) is very much relevant. In that case the applicant, Lalit Narayan was selected by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Forest and Plantation Development Corporation during November, 1984 as stipendiary candidate to undergo two years training in forestry in the State Forest Service and he successfully completed the training and reported back to the Corporation on 1.11.86 and was appointed as Deputy Divisional Manager. While he was undergoing training, Shri Hare Prasad and Shri Subrata G. Choudhary were selected by the Corporation as direct recruits for appointment as Assistant Agronomist and the applicant was sent for training of one year duration with effect from 16.1.85. They completed their training and reported back to the Corporation earlier than Shri Lalit Narayan. Their designation was later changed to that of Deputy Divisional Manager. In terms of Government of India's decision to treat the trainees in the State Forest Service Colleges functioning in the aegis of the Forest Research Institute and Colleges, Dehra Dun as in service trainees, which was implemented in the case of Forest Rangers and ACFs of Andaman and Nicobar Forest Department, Shri Lalit Narayan requested the corporation to treat his training as in service training and to fix his seniority over and above Shri Hare Prasad and Shri Subrata G. Choudhary. The Corporation rejected his prayer. He then file a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta and he obtained civil order being C.O. No.153(W) of 1996--Shri Lalit Narayan v. Union of India and Ors., challenging the orders of the Corporation rejecting his request to treat the training as in service training and to fix his seniority over his juniors and the High Court was pleased to pass an order on 24.6.97 in the matter of above writ petition that for the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and the resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 2 taken in its 37th meeting dated 1.2.85 not to treat the training period of the trainee as in service training is set aside. So, the period of training was taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority. Hence the applicant is not entitled to get any benefit of seniority as claimed in this case and the question of violation of principle of natural justice does not arise in this case since the respondents rectified their mistake in this case by granting the seniority of private respondents No. 7 and 8 over the applicant; so, the application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned Advocate, Mr. A.S. Ray, appearing on behalf of the applicant strenuously contended before us stating inter alia that the interse seniority of applicant and private respondents No. 7 and 8, who were directly recruited Forest Rangers and recruited directly by the different process of training and on different limes were rightly determined by the respondents in the seniority list dt. 4/6.3.89 (Ann E) according to the date of appointment to the posts of Forest Rangers on successful completion of their respective training as required under the recruitment rules 1978 (Ann L). In the instant case the respondents had rightly published the seniority position of the applicant on 4.7.89, Annexure 'E' to the application where the applicant was shown to be at Sl. No. 18 and the private respondents No. 7 and 8 were shown at Sl. Nos. 19 and 21, as per date of their appointment to the posts of Forest Rangers. The private respondents No. 7 and 8 were undergraduates and they were selected for undergoing two years training (1985 and 1987) of Forest Rangers Courts in Forest Rangers College, Kurseong for the purpose of appointment to the post of Forest Rangers and the private respondents No. 7 and 8 joined the Forest Rangers College, Kurseong for training with effect from 1.4.85. In the meantime the applicant was selected as B .Sc candidate for undergoing one year training of Forest Rangers course in Southern Forest Rangers College, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu for the purpose of appointment as Forest Rangers as per notification dated 24.8.95. On successful completion of the training of one year as prescribed for the applicant, he was appointed to the post of Forest Rangers in A&N Forest Department with effect from 1.1.87 vide letter dated 23.2.87, Annexure 'C' to the application whereas private respondents No. 7 & 8 were appointed to the post of Forest Rangers in A&N Forest Department after successful completion of training of two years with effect from 1.5.87 vide letter dated 8.6.87, Annexure 'D' to the application. Thereafter, the respondents published seniority list vide notification 4/6.7.89, Annexure 'E' to the application according to the date of appointment to the posts of Rangers but subsequently the respondents antedated the date of appointment of applicant and private respondents with retrospectively with effect from the date of their joining in the Training College and ordered for payment of the salary for the period of training vide order dated 11.11.91, Annexure 'F' to the application and thereafter they refix and published the seniority of Forest Rangers where the applicant was shown junior to the private respondents No. 7 and 8 vide seniority list dated 29.1.92 (Annexure 'G') was published without giving any show cause notice to the applicant and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the applicant. Therefore, the seniority list dated 29.1.92, Annexure 'G' to the application is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principle of natural justice, it is also contended by the learned advocate, Mr. Ray that the applicant preferred a representation against the impugned order of seniority dated 29.1.92 (Annexure 'G') vide representation dated 15.3.92, Annexure 'H' to the application and the A&N Administration has disposed of the representation on 21.8.97, Annexure 'K' disclosing that the training period of the Forest Rangers was treated as "in service" training in terms of the Government of India decision and they were allowed the pay and allowances for the period of training instead of stipend, since the applicant has taken all financial benefits of training and therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit of seniority as per date of appointment issued earlier and the seniority was required to be counted after taking into account the period of training i.e., from the date of joining to the College and the period of training cannot be excluded for the purpose of seniority. The cause of action arose on the date of rejection of the representation of the applicant vide letter dated 21.8.98 (Annexure 'K'); so, the application is within the period of limitation and the applicant is entitled to get all reliefs as sought for. The learned Advocate has relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269 (State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei and Ors.) where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even administrative orders which involve civil consequences have to be passed consistently with the rules of natural justice and order passed violating the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside. Learned advocate has also relied on another judgment reported in AIR 1989 SC 568 (H.L. Trehan and Ors. v.Union of India and Ors.) where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that change of service conditions of staff of Caltex (India) Ltd., by management of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., to disadvantage of staff of former without giving opportunity of hearing is liable to be set aside. It was also held that opportunity, if it was given after the alterations were made, would be immaterial. Mr. Ray has also relied on another judgment reported in (1994) 28 ATC 453 (Uday Pratap Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.) where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the executive order, cannot, by operating retrospectively destroy any right which had crystallised. Referring to the above judgments the learned advocate submits that the applicant is entitled to be declared senior to private respondents No. 7 and 8 in view of the settled principle of law and the application should be allowed granting reliefs to the applicant.
7. Learned Advocate, Mr. R.N. Majumdar appearing on behalf of the private respondents No. 7 and 8 and Mrs. K. Banerjee learned advocate appearing on behalf of the official respondents contended that the application is misconceived and is hopelessly barred by limitation.
They contended that the respondents implemented the policy decision of the Government in respect of maintaining the seniority and the original seniority list dated 4/5.7.89 (Annexure 'E') was published wrongly on the basis of the bonafide mistake and that bonafide mistake has been rectified by the Government subsequently when the period of training of the applicant and the private respondents No. 7 and 8 were treated to be "in service" and "on duty" for the purpose of salary and allowances under FR 9(6)(b)(ii) and the applicant had accepted the same, so, the applicant cannot have any grievance for maintaining the seniority from the date of joining to the training college, as prescribed and the training period of the applicant and respondents No. 7 and 8 were rightly counted towards seniority. Mr. Majumdar, learned Advocate strongly relies on one decision of the Patna High Court, reported in 1991 Lab. I.C. 2275 (Dr. S.P. Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) wherein it has been held that bonafide mistakes can be rectified and opportunity of hearing not warranted. He also relies on another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in CA No. 7536/1996 dated 18.4.1996 (Dhanna Ram v. Union of India and Ors.) and the judgment reported in 1999 SCC (L&S) 1460 (L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors. etc.) where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in determining the criteria for "length of service" service rendered on probation or on officiating appointment, unless there is contrary rule, cannot be ignored, Learned advocate also submits that the application is barred by limitation since the cause of action arose in the year 1992, when the revised seniority list dated 29.1.92 (Annexure 'G') published in the year of 1992, Annexure 'F' to the application in time as prescribed by Section 20/21 of the A.T. Act. So, the application should be dismissed in view of the provisions of Section 20/21 of the A.T. Act. Since the policy decision was taken by the respondents in the matter of treating the period of training "as in service" and "on duty," thereby the principle of determining the seniority of the Forest Rangers after taking into account the period of training in the A&N Administration cannot be said to be bad in law. So, the training period of the applicant and respondents No. 7 and 8 were rightly counted for all purposes including seniority. Therefore, the application is misconceived and it should be dismissed in limine with heavy costs.
8. In view of the divergent arguments advanced by the learned Advocates of all the parties we have considered the same and perused the records.
The question before us for decision is to see as to whether, in the absence of the seniority rules framed by the A&N Administration regulating the seniority of the Forest Rangers appointed to the Forest Department, the date of appointment to the post of Forest Rangers or date of joining to the Colleges for undergoing training course, prescribed by the Recruitment Rules, 1978 (Annexure 'L') would be counted for seniority. Recruitment Rules, 1978 (Annexure 'L') talks of recruitment to the posts of Forest Rangers in the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. In this connection we find that the provisions for recruitment Rules (Annexure 'L') for appointment to the posts of Forest Rangers in A&N Administration is relevant. The said Rule (Annexure 'L') clearly stipulates that the selected candidates will have to successfully complete Forestry Training in one of the Rangers' College sponsored by the Government of India and educational qualification prescribed for the post of Rangers in B.Sc Part I or its equivalent.
The rule of probation prescribed in Recruitment Rules, 1978 (Annexure 'L') further stipulates that both promotees and direct recruits shall be on probation for two years from the date of appointment to the post of Rangers. Recruitment Rule (Annexure 'L') further provides that 50% of the post of Rangers should be filled up by promotion from Deputy Rangers and 50% by direct recruitment. In case suitable candidates are not available for promotion, 100% by direct recruitment. On a perusal of the said provisions of recruitment Rules (Annexure 'L') for the post of Forest Rangers, the eligibility criteria prescribed for the appointment to such post is that selected candidates will have to successfully complete training before appointment to the post of Rangers. Therefore, it can be said that selected candidate, unless successfully complete training after recruitment would have no right of appointment to the post of Forest Rangers in A&N Administration. We find that the Ron' ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in 1993 SCC (L and S) 960 (Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Mishra) had considered the similar question of fact and law and made it clear that the term "Recruitment" is different from "Appointment," the recruitment connotes and clearly signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment, but certainly this is not the actual appointment to the posting in service and in contradistinction an "appointment" means the actual act of posting a person to a particular office and held that under rules the period of training is not to be counted as service under the initial process. In view of the said decision of the Apex Court, selection for training does not tantamount to appointment. In another case reported in 1994 SCC (L&S) 617=1994(1) SLJ 123 (SC), (Dr. S.K. Khanna v. State of Haryana) the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that the seniority of an employee employed to the post is related to that post alone. In another decision antedating of appointment retrospectively and fixation of seniority on that basis has been struck down by the Supreme Court, Prabhu Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, 1994 SCC (L&S) 768. In that case the applicant was appointed as Asst. Engineer on 19th January, 1967 by verbal order. Subsequently, formal order was issued on 17th February, 1968 appointing as an Assistant Engineer, but subsequently by an order dated 28th November, 1969, that order was modified treating the appellants appointment from 19th January 1967 to 16th February, 1968 on workcharge basis but treating him to be appointed as Assistant Engineer from 19th January, 1967. However, in the meantime two respondents had already been appointed regularly. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appellant's appointment could not be regularised with retrospective effect to the detriment of two respondents who had already been regularly appointed. In another cases reported in AIR 1993 SC 2573 (Bheyram Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board) the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the similar question and held that when the officers were directly recruited by the same process but at different times, those officers appointed earlier must be held to be senior to the officers appointed later. In the case (AIR 1993 SC 2573), the appellant in response to the advertisement dated 30th June 1967 published by Haryana State Electricity Board inviting applications for the post of Assistant Engineer, Class II (Electrical) made such application. The advertisement stated that the selected candidates would have to undergo the apprenticeship for six months or such extended period as might be decided by the Board. Similar conditions were stated in the offer of appointment as well. After completing the apprenticeship period, the appellants were appointed as Assistant Engineers, Class II by an order dated 18th April, 1969 with effect from Is January, 1969. Meanwhile, the respondent Nos. 2 to 29 who had applied for the post of Assistant Engineers, Class II in response to a subsequent advertisement dated 14th July, 1968 were selected and appointed in the post of Assistant Engineer during the year, 1968 to those posts. The respondent Nos.6,16, 17 and 28 although joined with some delay but did it before 18th April, 1969. The appellants have claimed seniority over the respondent Nos. 2 to 29 on the ground that they were appointed earlier than those respondents. Their claim was rejected by the High Court. They have moved the Supreme Court in appeal by special leave. The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the High Court. It is observed that once it is established that the appellants were appointed as Assistant Engineers, Class II on 18th April, 1969 with effect from 1st January, 1969 whereas respondents had been appointed between October and December, 1968 as Assistant Engineers, Class II, then the respondents shall rank senior to the appellants as they entered in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Class II of the Board before the appellants and that the High Court has rightly pointed out that in fact the appellants were appointed as Assistant Engineers, Class II only on 18th April, 1969, but notional seniority was given to them only on 1st January 1969, and in this process they cannot affect the seniority even of respondent Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 28.
9. In the instant case at our hand it remains admitted fact that as per advertisement of 1985 the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were selected earlier for Rangers' Training course for two year and they are undergraduate. They joined colleges for training on 1.5.87 and completed training of two years and appointed to the post of Forest Ranger on 1.5.87. In the meantime in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.8.85, Annexure 'C' the applicant being B.Sc has been selected for Rangers' Course for one year and he joined the course of completed the course for one year and thereafter appointed to the post of Forest Ranger on 1.1.87 and their period in between the relief from the Training Colleges and the joining the duty in DFO' s office was treated as on duty under FR 9(6)(b)(ii) and they were granted pay and allowances of Forest Rangers for entire period of training. It is admitted that the seniority list was published on 4/6.7.1989 (Annexure 'E') and the interse seniority of the Forest Rangers were counted from the date of appointment to the posts of Forest Rangers and in the said seniority list as per date of appointment the applicant was placed at Sl. No. 18 treating his date of appointment as on 1.1.87 and private respondents, Shri S.K. Thomas was placed at Sl. No. 19 treating his date of appointment as on 1.5.87 and Shri S.K. Paul was placed at Sl.
No. 21 treating his date of appointment as on 1.5.87. It is an admitted fact that subsequently the Lt. Governor, A&N Islands vide order No. E = 613/91 dated 11.11.91 (Annexure 'F') antedated the date of appointment of the applicant and respondents No. 7 and 8 retrospectively stating that the date of joining to the Rangers' training College would be treated as date of appointment. Accordingly, in the said notification dated 11.11.89 (Annexure 'F') the dates of appointment of the applicant and respondents No. 7 and 8 were antedated to 1.1.86 from 1,1.87 and to 1.5.85 from 1.5.87 retrospectively. It was further ordered that they would be entitled to draw initial pay in the pay scale as applicable at the time of their appointment. Immediately after the said notification dated 11.11.91, Annexure 'F', the respondents revised and refixed the seniority list and published the same vide notification dated 29.1.1992, Annexure 'G' to the application on the basis of antedating the date of appointment as per order dated 11.11.91, Annexure 'F' and the applicant was placed below Shri S.K. Paul whereas the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were placed above the applicant at Sl. Nos. 13 and 14. According the respondents, since the period of training was treated as a period on duty for the purpose of pay and allowances under the provision of FR 9(6)(b)(ii), the period of training was rightly counted for the purpose of seniority and the respondents have rightly counted the period of training at Colleges towards seniority in accordance with the recruitment rules and as per the judgment of the Calcutta Bench passed in C.O. No. 153(W) of 1996, (Lalit Narayan v.Union of India and Ors.), Annexure 'R' to the reply. So, according to the respondents seniority of the applicant and the private respondents No. 7 and 8 were rightly refixed in view of the principle of law laid down in the said judgment bearing C.O. No. 153(W) of 1996 of the Calcutta High Court. We find that in the said judgment it was held by the Calcutta High Court that the "period of training" is to be counted towards seniority, which is found to be in contradiction with the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above. The principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in binding to us. So, we are unable to accept the principle laid down by the Calcutta High Court in the judgment of Lalit Narayan case as referred in Annexure 'R/XII (P.63) of the reply of the respondents. Moreover, the applicant was not made a party to the said writ petition, which was disposed of after 1996, whereas the seniority of the applicant was revised in the year of 1992, i.e., long before the date of the said judgment.
10. It is settled law that in absence of the seniority rule, seniority would be counted from the date of appointment to the posts in service.
Neither the private respondents No. 7 and 8, nor the applicant can claim that they have been appointed to the post of Forest Rangers after being selected for training as per provision of the Recruitment Rules, 1978 (Annexure 'L'). They have been appointed to the post of Forest Rangers after successfully completion of training. Moreover, it is found that the applicant is B.Sc and he was sent for training for one year and the private respondents No. 7 and 8 were undergraduate and they were sent for training for two years in another College.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant and the private respondents are having the same qualification and same process of training of Rangers course for the purpose of appointment. We are of the view that under the provision of the Recruitment Rules, 1978 (Annexure 'L') mere selection for training prescribed for appointment would not confer any right of consideration of appointment to the post and as such selection cannot be termed as appointment to the posts in service. Therefore, it would be unjustified on the part of the respondents to fix the seniority of the selected candidates for Training of Rangers course and the Rangers who were appointed to the posts of Forest Rangers after successful completion of the training. In the case of O. P. Singla and Anr. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1595 (Para 26) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as below : "The pre-requisite of the right of inclusion in a common list of seniority is that all those who claim that right must, broadly, bear the same characteristics. The mere circumstance that they hold the.
posts which carry the same designation will not justify the conclusion that they belong to the same class." In view of the principles of law laid down above seniority of the Forest Rangers either could be counted from the date they would have completed training in the normal course prescribed for them or from the date of appointment to the posts of Forest Rangers on probation in accordance with the recruitment rules. On a perusal of the provision of the recruitment rules regulating the method of appointment to the posts of Forest Rangers on regular basis it is clear that the period of probation of two years is prescribed for direct recruitment and promotees appointed to the posts of Forest Rangers. So, the period of training prescribed for applicant to the post cannot be reckoned for seniority even if the period of training was treated to be on duty for the purpose of pay scale, increments etc. under provision of FR 9(6)(b)(ii).
11. In the instant case, it is found that the respondents after publication of the seniority list dated 4/6.7.89, Annexure 'E' to the application antedated the date of appointment of the applicant and the private respondents with retrospective effect and refix the seniority of the applicant and the private respondents No. 7 and 8 vide revised seniority list dated 29.1,92, Annexure 'G' to the application, by which the applicant was made junior to the private respondents and it was done, without giving him any reasonable opportunity or being heard and no notice was issued to the applicant as to why his seniority position published in earlier seniority list on 4/6.7.89 (Annexure 'E') should not be modified in view of the order of antedating the date, of appointment published vide the notification dated 11.11.91, Annexure 'F' to the application causing adverse effect on the applicant. It is settled that any order detrimental to the interest of the Government employee should not be passed or issued by the authority without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing such order. So, the action of the respondents in respect of alteration of the date of appointment vide letter dated 11.11.91 (Annexure 'F') and the subsequent revised seniority list published on 29.1.92 (Annexure 'G' are not sustainable in the eye of law being arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and it is violative of the principle of natural justice.
12. We have gone through the provision of FR 9(6)(b)(ii) which runs as follows : (b) A Government servant may be treated as on duty- (ii) in the case of a student, stipendiary or otherwise, who is entitled to be appointed to the service of Government on passing through a course of training at a university, college or school in India, during the interval between the satisfactory completion of the course and his assumption of duties.
On a perusal of the said provision we find that the said provision does not talk about the seniority of direct recruit or promotees of Forest Rangers. Therefore, we are of the view that under the present Recruitment Rules, 1978 (Annexure 'L') the period of training course for appointment cannot be counted for seniority though they were paid salary and allowances of this period. The Recruitment Rules, 1978 (Annexure 'L') does not provide any provision to bring the selected candidates for rangers training course, into the basic cadre of Forest Rangers, service before their appointment to the post of Forest Rangers on completion of the Training prescribed for them.
13. Regarding the question of limitation as raised by the learned Advocate of the respondents we find that the applicant made representation against the impugned seniority list dated 29.1.92 vide his representation dated 15.3.92, Annexure 'H' to the application and that representation has not been disposed of by the respondents.
Thereafter the applicant made another representation to the Lt.
Governor, A &N Islands on 7.10.96, Annexure 'J' to the application and thereafter issued reminders. On receipt of the several reminders on decision regarding seniority had been communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 21.8.97, Annexure 'K' to the application wherein the official respondents have disclosed the reasons that acceptance of the seniority of the private respondents No. 7 and 8 was on the basis of the representation made by them. So, the question of limitation would not operate in this case as per the provision of Section 21 of the A.T.Act.
14. It is found from the record that the applicant obtained an interim order from this Tribunal after filing this application to the effect that promotion given, If any, on the basis of the impugned seniority list dated 29.1.92, Annexure 'G' to the application shall abide by the result of this application.
15. In view of our findings made above we set aside the impugned orders dated 11.11.91 (Annexure 'F') and 29.01.92, Annexure 'G' and orders dated 21.8.97, Annexure 'K' to the application by which the applicant was made junior to the private respondents Nos. 7 and 8. With this observation we allow this application with direction upon the respondents to grant consequential relief or reliefs as admissible to him after refixing the seniority in the cadre of Forest Rangers from the date of initial appointment on probation to the post of Rangers in accordance with the recruitment rules, not from the date of joining the College for Rangers course training and to publish the seniority list within three months from the date of communication of this order. No order is passed as regards costs.