NDLI: Ashok Ram Parhad & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Government resolutions vis-à-vis statutory rule Service Law
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Divisional Forest Officer (in Maharashtra Forest Service, Class I) (Recruitment) Rules, 1984 – Proviso to r.2 – Maharashtra Forest Service, Group A (Junior Scale) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998 – rr. 3(b), 6 – Appellants who were recruited in 2014 and underwent a training, were appointed to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF) through nomination (direct appointment) in 2016 whereas respondent nos.4 to 9 were directly promoted to the post of ACF in 2014 and were not required to undergo the aforesaid training – Appellants filed application before Tribunal for declaration that their appointment be considered from the date of commencement of the training and, that the training period undergone be considered as period of service – A direction was also sought for payment of salary as per the pay scale prescribed for the post of ACF by considering the period of training as on probation/duty – Tribunal partly allowed the appellants’ application – Review application filed by respondent no.1 was dismissed – Thereafter, Government accepting the judgment, passed 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 – The Resolution also provided that the ACF appointed by nomination shall be considered from the initial date of their training and the seniority will be considered accordingly – Respondent nos.4 to 9 filed writ petition before the High Court on the ground that though they were promoted as ACF before the appellants but were shown junior to the appellants in the seniority list of ACF – High Court opined that the respondents would not be affected by the Tribunal’s order to the extent of directing payment of salary and the pay scale to the appellants from the date of initiation of the training period, as the respondents’ right would only be affected while considering the seniority vis-à-vis promotion to the post of Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) – Direction of the Tribunal to pay salary to them as per the pay scale was found reasonable – With regard to the seniority, the High Court held that the seniority of persons selected for the post of ACF by nomination shall be counted from the date of issuance of appointment order after successful completion of training qua the person appointed to ACF by promotion – On appeal, held: Proviso to r.2 of the 1984 Rules is unambiguous – Appointment is different from the recruitment process, which starts with the commencement of training – High Court’s view is correct – Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules – In the present case, the resolutions have been passed in the context that the person who successfully completes the training effectively gets the monetary compensation for his training period and is not deprived of the same – This cannot amount to giving seniority from the date of initial recruitment process to determine inter se seniority, when the Proviso to r. 2 of the 1984 Rules makes the date of appointment for direct recruits clear – Even if the Government Resolution dated 25.01.1990 upgraded the post of ACF from Class II to Class I, the Proviso to r.2 of the 1984 Rules will continue to hold valid in determining the period of service – Further, rr. 3B and 6 of the 1988 Rules leave no ambiguity and in fact read in consonance and the period of probation has to be necessarily excluded from period of service – The resolutions neither speaking about promotion to the post of DFO nor about seniority conclusively, the Proviso would operate with full force – Entrance and Training Rules (Revised) for the State Forest Service Officers, 2004 – Constitution of India – Art. 309. Service Law – Government resolutions vis-à-vis statutory rule – Held: In service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail – There can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with the same – Government resolutions issued by the Administrative Department cannot have the status of a statutory rule.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 233
Petitioner	Ashok Ram Parhad & Ors.
Respondent	The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
SCR	[2023] 2 S.C.R. 900
Judgement Date	2023-03-15
Case Number	822

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ashok Ram Parhad & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Jogi Ram Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors

Vinod Verma Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopal Meena & Ors.

Bindeshwari Ram Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Dr. S. Kumar & Ors. Vs. S. Ramalingam

Kasabai Tukaram Karvar & Ors. Vs. Nivruti (dead) Through Legal Heirs & Ors

Pandit D. Aher Vs. State of Maharashtra

Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Ashok K. Agarwal and Ors .

Jai Jai Ram and Ors. Vs. The U.p. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and Ors.

Ashok Ram Parhad & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Ashok Ram Parhad & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Jogi Ram Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors

Vinod Verma Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopal Meena & Ors.

Bindeshwari Ram Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Dr. S. Kumar & Ors. Vs. S. Ramalingam

Kasabai Tukaram Karvar & Ors. Vs. Nivruti (dead) Through Legal Heirs & Ors

Pandit D. Aher Vs. State of Maharashtra

Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Ashok K. Agarwal and Ors .

Jai Jai Ram and Ors. Vs. The U.p. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and Ors.

Ashok Ram Parhad & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.