The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside a 2014 government circular that relegated directly recruited forest guards to the lowest rung of seniority after inter-circle transfers, holding that the circular was ultra vires the Chhattisgarh Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 2012 and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, all appointed as Forest Guards through direct recruitment under the Chhattisgarh Class III Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 2012, challenged the effect of a government circular dated 31.07.2014. The circular mandated that any employee transferred from one forest circle to another be placed below all direct recruits and promotees of the transferee circle, irrespective of the merit-based ranking determined at recruitment.
Key Facts
- 05.01.2013: Petitioners were appointed as Forest Guards through a regular recruitment process under the Recruitment Rules, 2012.
- 23.08.2019: Petitioners were transferred on administrative grounds from Gariaband Circle to Bilaspur Circle (or to Katghora Circle in the case of Vinod Kumar Raj).
- 31.07.2014: Government circular issued, containing Clause 5 that prescribed placement of transferred employees at the bottom of the seniority list.
- 29.05.2013: Earlier circular directed preparation of a consolidated merit list of newly appointed Forest Guards.
- 08.09.2025: Divisional Forest Officer communicated verified recruitment marks of the petitioners.
- 18.09.2025: Petitioners filed representations seeking correction of seniority based on merit.
- 25.09.2025: Respondents rejected the representations, relying on Clause 5 of the 31.07.2014 circular.
- 22/07/2026: Order reserved.
- 06/08/2026: Order delivered.
Procedural History
- WPS No. 13626 of 2025: Petition filed by Mohan Lal Ratre seeking quash of the 31.07.2014 circular, the 25.09.2025 order, and direction to prepare a fresh gradation list.
- WPS No. 34 of 2026: Petition filed by five forest guards (Khem Singh Rajput, Ramawtar Tiwari, Tukesh Kumar Sahu, Bhagat Singh Markam, Ravindra Kumar Mahilange) with identical reliefs.
- WPS No. 1105 of 2026: Petition filed by Vinod Kumar Raj seeking the same reliefs.
- All three petitions were heard together before a Division Bench of the High Court.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioners: Argue that the 2014 circular cannot override the statutory Recruitment Rules, which determine seniority on the basis of merit. They contend that the circular creates an arbitrary penalty, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Respondents/State: contend that Clause 5 of the circular is consistent with Rule 12(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, and that the Recruitment Rules do not govern seniority on inter-circle transfers.
Relief Sought
- Quash the circular dated 31.07.2014 and the order dated 25.09.2025.
- Direct the respondents to prepare a fresh gradation list placing the petitioners according to their recruitment merit.
- Award costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an executive circular that places directly recruited forest guards at the bottom of the seniority list after a transfer can lawfully override the Chhattisgarh Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 2012 and the statutory seniority provisions, or whether such a circular is ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The petitioners relied on State of Chhattisgarh v. K. Singh and M. M. Sharma v. Union of India to argue that statutory service rules have primacy over administrative instructions.
- They highlighted Rule 6, Rule 14 and Rule 15 of the Recruitment Rules, 2012, which expressly tie seniority and promotion to merit and suitability, and contended that the circular creates a penalty without any statutory basis.
- Constitutional precedents such as E. P. S. V. S. R. v. State of Tamil Nadu were cited to underscore that any classification must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Articles 14 and 16.
For the Respondents
- The respondents relied on Rule 12(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, asserting that it authorises placement of transferees below direct recruits.
- They argued that the Recruitment Rules, 2012 deal only with the recruitment process and not with seniority on transfer, therefore the circular merely implements the statutory seniority scheme.
- The State cited State of U.P. v. Hari Ram to support the view that administrative circulars can fill gaps in service rules where the statutes are silent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the hierarchy of service law. It observed that the Chhattisgarh Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 2012 are statutory instruments framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and therefore enjoy the force of law. An executive circular, however, cannot amend, supplement or override a statutory rule unless expressly authorised by that rule.
"An executive circular cannot travel beyond the statutory rules or create consequences which are otherwise not contemplated by the governing service rules."
The Court noted that Rule 12(2)(b) of the 1961 Civil Services Rules deals with seniority of transferees appointed by transfer as a mode of recruitment, not with employees who entered service by direct recruitment and were later transferred on administrative grounds. Consequently, the circular’s blanket application of Clause 5 to all transferred forest guards was a mis-reading of Rule 12(2)(b).
The Court further applied the constitutional test of reasonableness. By placing directly recruited guards at the bottom of the seniority list solely because of a transfer, the circular imposed a penalty without any misconduct, thereby violating the equality clause (Article 14) and the right to equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16). The Court rejected the State’s contention that the Recruitment Rules were silent on transfer-related seniority, emphasizing that the purpose of Rules 14 and 15 is to preserve merit-based seniority throughout an employee’s career.
Having found the circular to be ultra vires, the Court struck down Clause 5 of the 31.07.2014 circular to the limited extent it affected the petitioners. It also quashed the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 that had rejected the petitioners’ representations.
The Court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to direct the respondents to recompute the seniority of the petitioners on the basis of their verified recruitment marks, within a specified time-frame, while expressly limiting the prospective operation of the declaration to the parties before it.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court declared Clause 5 of the circular dated 31.07.2014 ultra vires and struck it down insofar as it applied to the petitioners. The order dated 25.09.2025 rejecting the petitioners’ representations was quashed. The respondents were directed to fix the seniority of the petitioners on the basis of their original merit, to prepare a fresh gradation list, and to complete this exercise within ninety days of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The declaration operates prospectively and does not disturb the seniority of other employees who are not parties to the proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Executive Circulars Cannot Override Statutory Rules
- An administrative instruction that conflicts with a statutory service rule is void to the extent of the conflict.
- Courts will scrutinise such circulars against the constitutional guarantee of equality and the specific language of the governing statutes.
Seniority Must Follow Merit-Based Recruitment Rules
- Directly recruited employees retain the merit-determined seniority even after inter-circle transfers.
- Rule 12(2)(b) applies only where transfer itself is a mode of recruitment, not where transfer is merely administrative.
Relief Is Limited to Parties, Not a General Overturn of the Gradation List
- The Court may grant prospective relief confined to the petitioners, preserving stability for other employees.
- Authorities must recompute seniority within the time-frame ordered, failing which costs and further contempt may follow.
Practical Takeaways for Practitioners
- When challenging seniority decisions, cite the specific statutory provisions that govern recruitment and promotion.
- Obtain verified recruitment marks and ensure they are part of the record.
- Argue that any circular must be read in harmony with, not in substitution for, the statutory scheme.
- Seek prospective, time-bound directions to avoid collateral disruption.
