Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Range Forest Officers, on contract basis, in the of year 2012, pursuant to a selection process undertaken as per the relevant rtRecruitment and Promotion Rules. They underwent the necessary training from the Central Academy for State Forest Service, Burnihat (Assam), and on completion of their respective training, they reported back for duty.

petitioners below the private respondents, who admittedly were promoted against the post of Range forest Officers, after the induction of the petitioners on contract basis, is bad in law. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that this issue is of no more res integra and recently the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled as Sh. Taj rt Mohammad and others vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matter, has decided similar issue and this judgment is squarely applicable on the facts of this case, which was pronounced by Hon'ble Division Bench by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officer's Association vs. State of Maharashtra and others2.

6. Learned Counsel for the represented private respondents have adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents-State.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

8. The facts narrated hereinabove demonstrate that it is an admitted position that the initial appointment of the petitioners, though on contract basis, was as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and that too through the H.P. Public Service Commission. It is also not in dispute that all the private respondents at the time when the petitioners were appointed as Range Forest Officers on contract basis, were serving in the feeder cadre post thereto. It is also not in dispute that all the private respondents were promoted to the .

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of."

16. This preposition of law in fact has not been disputed even by learned Counsel for the State as well as represented private respondents in the course of arguments.

Therefore, in the backdrop of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed and the act of the respondent-Department of not counting the service rendered by the petitioners in the cadre of Range Forest Officers from the date of their initial appointment on contract basis, followed by regularization, without interruption, is held to be bad in law. The respondent-Department is directed to re-draw the seniority list of Range Forest Officers, as it stood on 31.12.2017, afresh .