C JAYARAM IFS Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition was the applicant in original Application No. 1934 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore [hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal']. In this petition, he has called in question the correctness of the order dated 5th november 1997 made in Application No. 1934 of 1995 by the Tribunal, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-N to this petition, in so far as the Tribunal has rejected his prayer for quashing of the order dated 16th June 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G to this petition, Wherein the year of allotment of the petitioner was fixed as 1986. He has also prayed for a further direction to the respondents to re-fix his year of allotment considering his appointment to Indian Forest Service [hereinafter referred to as 'the IPS' ] as one with effect from 3rd February 1989 or in the alternative as one from 1st January 1990 and for other incidental reliefs.

(2.) FACTS in brief: the petitioner, after successful completion of training, was appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forests in the State Forests Service on 3rd February 1983. Subsequently he was promoted to the senior cadre of post of Deputy Conservator of Forests on 24th November 1988. He was holding the said post which had been declared as equivalent in status and responsibility to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests included in Schedule 3 (2) to the IFS (pay) Rules till his appointment to IFS cadre. The petitioner had completed eight years of service on 3rd February 1989 and thus became eligible for consideration to be placed in the select-list for IFS on 1st january 1990 in terms of Regulation 5 (2) of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations']. The Committee constituted for making selection met on 18th December 1990 and selected the petitioner who was placed first in the select-list. The said list was sent to the 2nd respondent-Union Public service Commission [hereinafter referred to as 'the UPSC' ], which approved the list submitted by the Committee on 16th April 1991. Subsequently, by means of Notification dated 11th June 1991, a copy of which was produced as Annexure-D to this petition ( i. e. Annexure A4 before the tribunal), the petitioner was appointed to IPS. On the basis of the date of appointment, the 1s' respondent-Union of India had fixed the year of allotment as 1986 in terms of Rule 3 (1) (c) of indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1968 [hereinafter referred to as 'the seniority Rules']. As noticed by us earlier, aggrieved by the year of allotment given to the petitioner for IFS as 1986 on the basis of his appointment to IFS by means of Notification dated 11th June 1991, he had approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the impugned order has rejected his claim.

(3.) SRI Madhusudan R. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the correctness of the order passed by the tribunal, made two submissions. Firstly, relying upon regulation 5 (1) of the Regulation, he submitted that since it was incumbent on the Committee to meet at an interval not exceeding a period of one year and prepare the list of such members of state Forest Service as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the IFS cadre, and since the same has not been done by the selection committee, the tribunal ought to have held that the delay in issue of Notification Annexure-D should not affect the claim of the petitioner while determining the year of allotment prior to 1986 in terms of the norms prescribed in the Seniority rules. Elaborating this submission, the learned Counsel pointed out that since the petitioner was appointed to IFS by means of Notification dated 11th June 1991, the 1st respondent-Union of india fixed the year of allotment in terms of seniority rules only as 1986; and this, the learned counsel points out, has seriously affected the seniority of the petitioner. In support of his submission that Regulation 5 (1) of the Regulation is mandatory, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SYED KHALID RIZVI v. UNION OF INDIA, (1993 )I LLJ887 SC , 1992 (3 )SCALE287 , (1993 )3 SCC575 , [1992 ]supp3 SCR180 and referred to us paragraph 8 of the judgment. It is his submission that in the said decision, the Supreme Court while interpreting the Rule which came up for consideration, has interpretated the word 'may' used in the said Rule as mandatory; and that being the position, it is his submission that the language employed in the Regulation being 'shall' as against 'may' employed in IFS Regulation, the committee was under a statutory obligation to meet at an interval of not exceeding one year and prepare the list of such members of the State forest service officers who may be suitable for promotion to the IFS cadre. Therefore, he submits that the conclusion reached by the tribunal that if proper explanation is offered by the authorities for the delay on the part of the committee to make a selection of the suitable candidates, the delay caused can be condoned and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for determining the fixation of year of allotment prior to year 1986 in terms of seniority Rules, is erroneous in law. Secondly, he submitted that the conclusion reached by the tribunal that the authorities have given satisfactory explanation for the default of the Committee in not meeting at an interval of one year from the first meeting, is equally erroneous in law. According to the learned Counsel, the confidential Reports of the petitioner and some other officers were not available, cannot be considered as a satisfactory explanation offered for the default on the part of the Committee to meet within the time prescribed. In this connection, he referred to us the statement made in paragraph 4 of the statement of objections and also the observation made by the tribunal at paragraph 11 of the Judgment. It is his submission that since admittedly the Committee had met in the month of March 1989 for the purpose of selection to be made for the earlier period, the committee, in terms of Regulation 5 (1) of the Regulations, was required to meet and take a decision not later than by March 1990. He pointed out that since admittedly the petitioner was eligible to be considered for appointment to the cadre of IFS, the breach of Regulation committed by the Committee cannot be put against the petitioner so as to affect his service conditions. The learned Counsel submitted that any dereliction or indifference on the part of the authorities, which are required to update the records and place it before the Committee, is not a ground to take the view that there was sufficient ground for the Committee not to meet at an interval of one year. He also pointed out that since the petitioner was eligible for appointment to ifs cadre from 1st January 1990; the confidential Reports of the petitioner and other officers were required to be considered prior to 1st January 1990; and since the said materials Were available with the state Government, the State Government was required to take steps to get the meeting of the Committee held within the period prescribed under the regulations and for the default of the State Government in getting the Committee meeting held within the time prescribed, the seniority of the petitioner cannot be allowed to be affected. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ASHOK V. DAVID v. M. G. HALAPPANAVAR, 1996 IV AD (SC )615 , AIR1996 SC 2165 , JT1996 (6 )SC 157 , 1996 (4 )SCALE588 , (1996 )9 SCC67 , [1996 ]supp2 SCR723 , 1996 (2)SLJ1 (SC ) and drew our attention to paragraphs 4 to 6 of the judgment and also in the case of devendra NARAYAN SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1996 VIII ad (SC )107 , AIR1997 SC 595 , JT1996 (11 )SC 77 , 1996 (7 )SCALE857 , (1996 )11 SCC342 , [1996 ]supp7 SCR732 and referred to us paragraph 6 of the judgment.