HEM KANT ROY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions were heard at length and with consent of parties are being disposed of at this stage itself. These seven writ petitions have been filed at different times by officers of the Bihar Forest Service, a service of the State Government under the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), as amended from time to time. Ultimately, the question to be determined by this Court is, as to the dispute regarding inter se seniority of various petitioners and private respondents of the said service because during long pendency of these writ petitions, the Government has, on 2.7.2010, published and notified the final gradation list.

(2.) The first four writ petitions were filed prior to the publication of the final gradation list and as such, by various applications in view of subsequent events, the final gradation list is now in question. I may indicate that out of the first four writ petitions, two of them virtually became infructuous upon publication of the final gradation list but were not permitted to be withdrawn by this Court as the petitioners were respondents in the last three writ petitions filed later challenging the final gradation list. Position of parties having materially changed in the final gradation list. Court thought it proper to decide once and for all, all disputes of inter se seniority so that the matter could effectively be put to rest in presence of all parties concerned and/or affected.

(3.) In CWJC No. 141 of 2008, which was filed on 2.1.2008 the sole petitioner Hem Kant Roy, who is positioned at serial no. 212 in the final gradation list (now published), had originally challenged that he ought to have been shown senior to private respondents No. 5 to 15, who were direct recruits, pursuant to advertisement issued in 1985 and who were appointed on 14.12.1987 as against the 40 vacancies advertised. The apparent ground was that he had been appointed and was working as Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF) since 31.3.1986 but was wrongly shown as appointee with effect from 26.12.1989. He claims his appointment vide amended Rule 3 (aa). By amendment petition, he has challenged the final gradation list in which he has been placed at serial no. 212 whereas the contesting respondents are in the group starting with serial no 121 upto 157. Therefore, in this case, the question would be as to the relative date of appointment of the petitioner in the service vis-a-vis the private respondents.