Service Rules Must Prevail In Service Jurisprudence – Supreme Court

On dt. 15^th March 2023 Supreme Court in a recent judgement (ASHOK RAM PARHAD & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.) observed that service rules must prevail in service jurisprudence, and any government resolutions should not conflict with the rules. The Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules clearly stated that the period spent on training and probation, including an extended period, would not be counted towards the requisite period of service.

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Ashok Ram Parhad and others against the State of Maharashtra and others, relating to a dispute over seniority between direct recruits and promotees in relation to the Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF) post in the Maharashtra Forest Service. The case revolved around whether the training period should be considered as a period of service, and the seniority list of ACF. The appellants were appointed through nomination in 2016, while respondent nos. 4 to 9 were directly promoted to the post of ACF in 2014.

The Tribunal had allowed the appellants' application and held that they will be entitled to regular pay after successful completion of probation and entitled for appointment as ACF from the commencement of their training on 01.02.2014. The Government accepted the judgment and passed a resolution resolving that successful completion of training period would be considered as regular service from the date of inception of training for all service purposes. Respondent nos. 4 to 9 filed a writ petition before the High Court against the appellants and the Government of Maharashtra, claiming that they were appointed as Range Forest Officers and promoted to the post of ACF before the appellants but were shown junior to the appellants in the seniority list of ACF.

The High Court examined the 1998 Rules and found that seniority amongst persons appointed by nomination is not fixed unless they pass the final examination of the ACF training course. Rule 6 of the 1998 Rules is in line with Rule 3(b), where candidates are selected for the ACF training course, and only after passing the final exam are issued appointment orders. Rule 7 only provides for the fixation of inter se seniority of ACFs appointed by nomination and does not address seniority between those appointed by promotion and nomination.

The Supreme Court observed that service rules must prevail in service jurisprudence, and any government resolutions should not conflict with the rules. The Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules clearly stated that the period spent on training and probation, including an extended period, would not be counted towards the requisite period of service. Therefore, the appointment process is different from the recruitment process, which starts with the commencement of training, and there can be cases where a candidate does not complete the training satisfactorily, resulting in the candidate's removal on probation or an extension of the probation period.

The Supreme Court further observed that the process for direct recruitment to the post of ACF is clear, as set forth in the 1998 Rules and the 2004 Rules. The Court held that government resolutions cannot have the status of statutory rules and that the service rules must prevail. The Court held that the Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules is unambiguous and quite clear, which states that the period spent on training and other periods of probation, including extended periods of probation, shall not be counted towards the requisite period of service.

The Court concluded that the applicable Rules leave no ambiguity in the matter and must prevail. The Court held that the Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules, and the resolutions neither speak about promotion to the post of DFO nor about seniority conclusively. The Proviso to Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules would operate with full force. Therefore, the appeal by Ashok Ram Parhad and others was dismissed.

ASHOK RAM PARHAD & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS