Bihar Forest Service Seniority Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Verdict

The case involves a long-standing dispute regarding the seniority of Assistant Conservators of Forests (ACFs) in Bihar. The appellants, Nand Kumar Manjhi and Others, challenged the decision of the Patna High Court regarding their seniority in the Bihar Forest Service cadre. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the appellants were correctly placed at the bottom of the seniority list.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from the 1985 recruitment process for 40 ACF posts under the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953. The appellants participated in the selection process but were not appointed in the initial merit list.

Following representations made to the Chief Minister and other officials, additional appointments were made in 1988, including that of the appellants. These appointments, however, were made beyond the advertised 40 posts.

The state government later amended the Bihar Forest Service Rules in 1989, introducing Rule 3(aa), which allowed the promotion of Range Officers as direct recruits. Further, the state created shadow posts in 2010 to accommodate excess appointments.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The appellants contended:

• They should have been given seniority from their date of appointment on April 13, 1988.
• They were appointed based on recommendations from the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC).
• Many officers appointed after them in 1989, 1990, 1992, and 1995 were ranked above them in the final seniority list.
• The final seniority list of July 2, 2010, unfairly placed them at the bottom.

Arguments of the Respondent

The Bihar government and other respondents argued:

• The appellants’ initial appointments in 1988 were irregular and made through backdoor lobbying.
• The official merit list from the 1985 advertisement had already been exhausted.
• Under Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, seniority is determined based on the date of substantive appointment.
• The appellants’ services were only regularized in October 2005, meaning their seniority should begin from that date.
• The final seniority list was prepared following proper legal procedures.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled:

“An appointment in substantive capacity is one which is not fortuitous or ad hoc, and is made in compliance with the extant rules and regulations. The appellants had secured appointment through backdoor lobbying, which was wholly illegal and in contravention of the statutory rules.”

The Court reiterated that recruitment must be conducted within the advertised vacancies and that extending appointments beyond such vacancies is impermissible.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s ruling. The Court found that the appellants’ seniority could only be counted from October 3, 2005, when their services were regularized, rather than from their initial appointment in 1988.

Thus, the petition was dismissed, and the final seniority list of July 2, 2010, was affirmed.

Petitioner Name: Nand Kumar Manjhi and Others.
Respondent Name: State of Bihar and Others.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 22-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Nand Kumar Manjhi an vs State of Bihar and O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-04-2019.pdf