K A R SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. In all these Special Civil Applications, the petitioners have challenged the order of their reversion from the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests to the post of Range Forest Officer. The facts and grounds are common in these Special Civil Applications and hence these Special Civil Applications are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In the month of May, 1981 the meeting of Departmental Selection Committee was held for considering the cases of Range Forest Officers, including the petitioners, for their promotions to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. The Departmental Selection Committee placed the name of the petitioners in the select list. In pursuance of that selection, the petitioners were given promotion on officiating basis on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. All the petitioners have been given the promotion under the same order. The order of reversion of the petitioners has been made, but as usual without receiving the copy of that order, the petitioners have filed these Special Civil Applications before this court challenging thereunder their reversion from the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests to that of Range Forest Officer. All the petitioners have proceeded on casual leave from 15th September, 1984 i.e. on knowing of this order. This court has issued the rule and protected the petitioners by granting interim relief in their favour in terms of para no.14(B). Para no. 14(B) reads as under: pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship will be pleased to restrain by an order of injunction the respondents herein, their officers, servants and agents from effecting reversion by reverting the petitioner from the Gazetted Class II post of Officiating Assistant Conservator of Forest to the substantive Class III post of Range Forest Officer; The reply to the writ petition has been filed and in para no.4 thereof it has been averred as under: I say that the facts in the present case are similar to the facts in the Special Civil Application No.1736 of 1984 filed by on Mr. B.O. Shah, who was similarly situated as the petitioner. I say that the issues raised in the present petition are identical to the issues raised in the Special Application No.1736 of 84. I say that I have made an affidavit in reply to the said Special Civil Application No.1736 of 84 on 4th February, 1989. I say that, my statements and contentions made in the said affidavit be treated as the statements and submissions made in reply to the present petition. A copy of the said Affidavit in reply dated 4th February, 1989 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure-1. A copy of the reply which has been filed by the respondents in Special Civil Application No.1736 of 1984 has also been filed alongwith the reply. The respondents have come up with a case that the petitioners have been reverted from the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests as their selection made by Departmental Selection Committee was not approved by Gujarat Public Service Commission. The G.P.S.C. considered the petitioners unfit for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests and consequent thereupon they have been ordered to be reverted.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners made two fold submissions before this court. Firstly, it is contended that many juniors who were promoted alongwith the petitioners were retained on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests whereas the senior persons, the petitioners herein, were reverted which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. It has next been contended that no reasons whatsoever have been given by the G.P.S.C. not to approve the promotion of the petitioners made by the Selection Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the selection of the petitioners by Departmental Selection Committee was provisional subject to the approval by the G.P.S.C.. The learned counsel for the petitioners also does not dispute that the appointment by promotion which has been given to the petitioners was subject to the condition of approval by the G.P.S.C..