SHER SINGH SIKRIWAL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short issue arises for consideration in the instant writ petition.

(2.) IT appears that the learned Members of Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal got thoroughly confused by the pleadings in OA No. 2195/1994 and probably the counsel for the petitioner could not explain the nuances of petitioner's case resulting in the Tribunal penning in paragraph 16:-

(3.) THE Indian Forests Service (Recruitment) Rules 1966, inter alia, lay down the procedure to make appointment to the service and we find that as per Rule 4 thereof one method of appointment to the service is by promotion from amongst the members of the State Forest Service adjudged suitable in accordance with such regulations as may be made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government and the Union Public Services Commission. As per Rule 8 of the Rules, members of State Forest Service would be entitled to be promoted to the Indian Forest Service with respect to vacancies accruing in the State quota. The Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1966 lay down the provisions as to how list of candidates suitable for promotion from the State Forest Service to the Indian Forest Service have to be prepared, and suffice would it be to note that as per Rule 5, such lists have to be prepared each year. The seniority of officers in the Indian Forest Service is governed by the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules 1968 and with respect to officers who are appointed to the service by promotion, Rule 3 envisages assigning a year of allotment in accordance with the Rules. Thus, the year of allotment being assigned for purposes of seniority is a matter different and independent of the year in which a person is appointed by promotion in the Indian Forest Service.