VINEET KUMAR PANGTEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, hence they both are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) BY means of Writ Petition (M/B) No.41 of 2005, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 10.1.2005 passed by Chief Secretary, Forest Department, Govt. of Uttaranchal - Respondent No.

(3.) , by which the request of the petitioner regarding allocation to Uttaranchal Cadre was rejected and in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 402 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus commanding Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to change the cadre of the petitioner from Uttar Pradesh to Uttaranchal. 3. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are that he is the Deputy Project Director in the Watershed Department of State of Uttaranchal and is presently posted at Dehradun. The petitioner was directly recruited in the Indian Forest Services in the year 1988. It is pertinent to mention here that the State cadre of Indian Forest Services comprises of direct recruits and promotees. Direct recruits are those who are recruited on the basis of an All India competitive examination conducted by UPSC while the promotees are those who are promoted to the IFS from the State Forest Services and the petitioner is directly recruited as an Officer in the IFS in the year 1988. After the creation of State of Uttaranchal from the State of U.P. by an Act of Parliament known as U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), an Advisory Committee was constituted under Section 76 of the Act for allocation/reallocation of persons of All India Services. The said Advisory Committee gave its final report to Respondent No.2 in October 2000. The summary recommendation at Sl. No. 2 of the report of the said committee refers to 'insiders and 'outsiders amongst direct recruit officers of All India Services and for State of Uttaranchal, an "insider" would mean an officer whose domicile in official record is in one of the 13 Districts from the State of Uttaranchal. The petitioner has alleged that he is a domicile of Almora which is a District of State of Uttaranchal and hence he is "insider" by the definition of the Advisory Committee. The petitioner is direct recruit member of I.F.S. of 1998 batch and he was appointed to IFS on probation on 4.7.1988 vide notification dated 15.5.1999. The petitioner has further alleged that the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 16.5.1998 is addressed to his Almora address which clearly states the permanent place of stay and the domicile of the petitioner is at Almora, which is a part of State of Uttaranchal. The petitioner has also alleged that he belongs to "Bhotia" community which has been declared as a Scheduled Tribe in the erstwhile State of U.P. in the Schedule Tribe Order, 1967 and as per Section 25 read with Schedule 6 of the Act, the aforesaid Schedule Tribe Order now stands amended and "Bhotia" tribe to which the petitioner belongs is now a scheduled tribe of State of Uttaranchal and not of U.P. The petitioner has also filed in this regard a certificate given to the petitioner by District Magistrate, Almora on 3.2.1988 i.e. prior to the petitioners initial appointment as an IFS Officer which also certifies that the petitioner belongs to "Bhotia Tribal Community". The petitioner also moved a representation before Respondent No.1 in which he also stated the fact that he has to take care of his mother who is also a widow and resides with him and his mother is also a patient of Allergic Rhinitis with Asthmatic Bronchitis. The petitioner made repeated representations before the respondents but all were in vain due to which the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.402 of 2002 (S/B) in which this Court has passed the following order : -