ANAND KUMAR Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, the U.P. Forests Corporation Act was enacted in the year 1974 (from hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Inter alia, the Act provided for the establishment of a Forest Corporation for better observation, supervision and development of forest and better exploitation of forest produce within the State and for other allied matters. After the creation of the new State of Uttarakhand by an Act of Parliament known as the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, the new State of Uttarakhand came into existence on 9.11.2000 called the "appointed day". It was then found necessary that the new State should have its own Forest Corporation and consequently in the year 2001, Uttarakhand formed its own Forest Corporation known as Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation. By a mutual agreement between the new Corporation in Uttarakhand and erstwhile Forest Corporation of Uttar Pradesh with the respective interference and control of the respective State Governments, there was a division of assets and liabilities between the two Corporations. In this division of assets, the existing posts were also divided between the two Corporations. Amongst other there were 18 posts of "Sales Officer" in the undivided Corporation which were to be equally divided between the two Corporations. In the erstwhile Forest Corporation in the State of Uttar Pradesh, promotions were to be made to the post of Sales Officer from Assistant Logging Officer and Deputy Logging Officer, as the case might be. There were certain special qualifications one must have in order to be qualified for promoted to the post of Sales Officer. The qualification was Diploma in Business or Marketing Management from I.I.M. Ahmadabad, Calcutta, or Banglore or degree of Business or Marketing Management from recognized institutions/universities. The dispute raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that in the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh in the U.P. Forest Corporation, there were 18 posts of Sales Officer and since there has been an equal division of assets and equal division of posts after the creation of Uttarakhand in the new Forest Corporation, 9 posts of Sales Officer should have come in the share of Uttarakhand Forest Corporation and since 1/3rd posts have to be filled by way of promotion from Assistant Logging Officer, he was liable to be promoted to this post. On his repeated representation to this effect vide order dated 19.8.2004 the Managing Director of the Forest Development Corporation Uttarakhand gave an order stating that the petitioner cannot be promoted to the post of Sales Officer, as there was only one post of Sales Officer, which is presently filled. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The Forest Corporation in its counter affidavit has denied the averments of the petition and has stated that there is only one post in the Uttarakhand Forest Corporation of Sales Officer as a conscious decision has been taken by the new Forest Corporation of Uttarakhand and in its wisdom they have realized that in the new structure which has been framed only one post of Sales Officer is required in the new Forest Development Corporation in Uttarakhand. This post is already filled by the present incumbent Sri Umesh Kumar Tripathi and there is no vacancy on which the petitioner can be promoted. The petitioner, on the other hand, refuted the contention of the Forest Corporation and stated that the posts were created vide regulations framed under Section 34 of the Act and it is not given to the Corporation to decrese the number of posts. According to the petitioner the net result of formation of the new Forest Corporation would be that the posts of Sales Officer have decreased which consequently means that the chances for promotion of petitioner have also diminished. This argument of the petitioner is totally misconceived. A chance for promotion is not a condition of service. This is a legal position repeatedly reiterated by the Apex Court, more particularly in State of Orissa v. Durga Charan Dass AIR 1966 SC 1547 and Ram Chandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 259.

(3.) It is a settled position of law that although a right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, a mere chance of promotion is not. In the present case, the chances of promotion of the petitioner may have been reduced inasmuch as the posts of Sales Officer have been reduced. Moreover, the other avenues of promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Logging Officer have not been reduced. Be that as it may, petitioner still has chances to be promoted from Assistant Logging Officer to the post of Logging Officer. Merely because the petitioner's chance for promotion has decreased it does not give any right to the petitioner to raise any claim against the Forest Corporation. Respondent Corporation is fully at liberty to increase or decrese the size of the Corporation, as long as the avenues of promotion are still available to the petitioner. Another objection of the petitioner that nine posts have been created vide regulation and therefore these posts can be increased or decreased only by a regulation and not by a mere executive feate, is also misconceived.