VISHNU CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. RCSAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE on same set of facts, the order passed by the Tribunal is under challenge, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) PETITIONER Vishnu Chandra Sharma after being selected by the Departmental Selection Committee for the post of Ranger Gr. I under Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules of 1963, was sent for training for the Sessions 1979-81. On completion of training, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Ranger Gr. I vide order dated 14. 4. 1981 and subsequently has also been confirmed on the above post w. e. f. 4. 5. 1988. Respondent Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, on the other hand, was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) in the recruitment held in the year 1978 and was sent for training for the Session 1979-80. After completion of training, the above Mr. Om Prakash Sharma was appointed on the post of Ranger Gr. I vide order dated 6. 2. 1980 and has also been confirmed on the above post w. e. f 1. 3. 1988. A seniority list of Ranger Gr. I was issued on 31. 10. 1992 in which name of the petitioner did not find place. However, subsequently the above seniority list was modified vide order dated 27. 11. 1992 by which name of the petitioner was placed above Mr. Om Prakash Sharma. A final seniority list was also published accordingly on 15. 12. 1992 on the basis of which further promotions were to be made on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest.

(3.) THEIR appears to be some anomaly under the rules to the extent of determining seniority of persons selected by different agencies for the same year. Rule 29 (3) (A) only clarifies the position as to how the seniority of the candidates selected through the same selection by the RPSC has to be determined. Even Rule 29 (3) also refers to the determination of seniority of the candidates selected in one and the same selection. There is no other clarification as to how the seniority of persons was to be determined when the selections have been made one by the RPSC and the other made by the Departmental Selection Committee from amongst in service candidates on the lower post. In such circumstances, when the sub-rule and the proviso provides for determination of vacancies only in particular circumstances and exigencies, in my opinion, the seniority can only be determined as per main provision of Section 29, i. e. from the date of confirmation.