C CHENNAPPAN Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is stated by the petitioner that he was selected for appointment to the post of Forest Watcher, through the employment exchange, by direct recruitment, on merits and he had joined service on 14.11.1989. He was promoted to the post of Forest Guard by an order, dated 9.2.1995, passed by the third respondent on the basis of the Division wise seniority, as per the rules, and the orders of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, dated 3.3.1994. According to the orders of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, a person promoted to the post of Forest Guard cannot be disturbed to accommodate a candidate from another Division. While so, the fourth respondent was transferred from another circle to the post held by the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner has been reverted from the promoted post for want of vacancy in his division.

(2.) THE petitioner has also stated that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Forest Guard, the division concerned has been taken as a unit, as per the rules. THErefore, the petitioner cannot be reverted for accommodating the fourth respondent, who has been transferred to the post held by the petitioner from another circle. A person, who is transferred to another circle or division, has to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new division or circle to which he is transferred. Further, such a transfer can be made only when there is a vacancy in the said division and when there is no other person in the post of Forest Ranger in the same division, eligible to be promoted to the post of Forest Guard. No candidate from another division or circle can be accommodated in the vacancy of a different division as it would adversely affect the promotional chances of Forest watchers in the same division. THEre are clear instructions in this regard issued by the Head of the Department. THE instructions are dated 3.3.1994 and 8.6.1994. Thus, any transfer from one division to the other and the consequent reversion resulting in such transfer are bad in law and therefore, such a transfer is liable to be set aside. Further, since the transfer of the fourth respondent is only based on his request such a transfer is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 7.1.1994. THE order of transfer of the fourth respondent to the post held by the petitioner is not unconstitutional as it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an original application in O.A.No.6632 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.25934 of 2006.

(3.) IT has also been stated that one Dr. V. Prusothaman, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Pennagaram constituency had lodged a written complaint, on 7.6.1995, against the petitioner stating that he had indulged in smuggling activities in association with the sandalwood smuggler Veerappan.