VIRENDRA SINGH MALIK Vs. A RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent was directly recruited as Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Tamil Nadu Forest Service through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and joined service on 1. 2. 1981 and he was confirmed in the said post with effect from 31. 12. 1983. He was selected to the Indian Forest Service by the Selection committee at its meeting held on 24. 3. 1994 for selecting candidates for the four vacancies that arose during the period and the first respondent herein was placed at Sl. No. 4 and on approval of the Select List, he was posted to the cadre post i. e. District Forest Officer, Thanjavur and joined duty in the said cadre post on 18. 6. 1994 as per G. O. Ms. No. 317, Environment and Forests (FR. Spl. A) Department, dated 8. 6. 1994 of the second respondent and thereafter, the name of the first respondent was also recommended to the first respondent for appointing him to the Indian Forest Service in the existing vacancy. However, before the promotion proposals could be processed, one Syed Mustafa filed O. A. No. 360 of 1994 before the Tribunal to include his name in the Select List of 1992-93 and since the said O. A. was allowed by the Tribunal on 31. 8. 1994, the name of the said Syed Mustafa was included in the Select List of 1994 and since there were only four vacancies and one vacancy had to be filled by the said Mustafa, the first respondent could not be appointed from the Select List of 1993-94. The next Selection Committee meeting was held on 8. 3. 1995 at Madras, to prepare the Select List for 1995. There were four vacancies and the name of the first respondent was included as S. No. 3 and based on the proposal submitted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, three officers, including the first respondent, were appointed to the Indian Forest Service of the year 1995.

(2.) IN the meantime, the Government of Tamil Nadu, by G. O. Ms. No. 202, Environment and Forests (FR. Spl. A.) Department, dated 23. 6. 1995, ordered the first respondent to continue in the cadre post. Therefore, contending that if he had been rightly appointed to the I. F. S. , even during 1994, he would have got about one year and six months advancement in the year of allotment and seniority above the other two candidates selected along with him in the year 1995, the first respondent herein filed O. A. No. 590 of 2006 before the Tribunal, praying to call for the records of the Government of India, in F. No. 18014/18/2004 IFS. II, dated 16. 3. 2005 and quash the same to the limited extent of re-determination of his seniority and year of allotment and issue consequential directions to the other official respondents to re-determine his seniority in the IFS cadre of Tamil Nadu below Mr. Subrat Mohapatra and above Mr. Shekhar Kumar Niraj and fix the year of allotment as 1989, with consequential benefits.

(3.) THE grievance of the applicant is that he should not have been deprived of the benefit of his selection to the IFS for 1994 in view of the inclusion of the name of Mr. Syed Mustafa, who was not at all in the selection list of 1994, but included as per the order of the Tribunal and in such an event, the official respondents ought to have created a supernumerary post for accommodating Mr. Syed Mustafa, instead, he was appointed at the cost of the first respondent thereby adversely affecting his positing and seniority for no fault of his. He has also contended that once his above grievance is redressed, the date of his continuous officiation in the cadre post alone should be taken into consideration for determining the seniority and his year of allotment in view of Explanation No. 1 under Rule 3 (2) (c) of the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules.