STATE OF U P Vs. INDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek quashing of the Judgment and order dated 10.9.1997 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in three connected Original Applications being Original Application No. 982 of 1996, Original Application No. 927 of 1996 and Original Application No. 1120 of 1996 besides the order dated 24.10.1993 rendered in Review Application No. 96 of 1997 filed by some of the opposite parties in Original Application No. 982 of 1996.

(2.) The applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal had challenged the validity of the select list prepared by the authorities for induction of the State Forest Service Officers into the Indian Forest Service and sought quashing of the select list as well as the order dated 7.9.1996 by which some of the officers in the select list were appointed to the Indian Forest Service. The principal ground of challenge to the select list was that the authorities under the Regulations were bound to make selection year-wise on the basis of year-wise vacancies but they failed to make year-wise selection and illegally clubbed the vacancies of last several years and selected officers for induction into the Indian Forest Service in contravention of the provisions of the Regulations. Applications were opposed, inter alia, on the ground that there were legitimate justification for not holding the selection year-wise and that the applicants were among the 130 State forest officers considered by duly constituted Selection Committee for 33 vacancies in the cadre of Indian Forest Service in accordance with the relevant regulations but they were not found suitable by the Selection Committee for the induction into the Indian Forest Service Cadre.

(3.) The Tribunal took the view that it was incumbent upon the Selection Committee to prepare separate select list in relation to year-wise vacancies restricting the zone of consideration to candidates eligible in each year of recruitment. The select list prepared after clubbing the vacancies of various years, held the Tribunal, was contrary to the Regulations. The Tribunal accordingly quashed the select list on the short point that this was a combined select list of vacancies which during a period of nearly 12 years and directed the authorities, vide judgment and order dated 10.9.1997, to prepare year-wise select list by holding the review D.P.C. in accordance with law. Some of the officers arrayed as opposite parties in Original Application No. 982 of 1996 filed a Review Application being Review Application No. 96 of 1997 on the limited ground that though the question of grant of seniority retrospectively with reference to the year of selection was the subject-matter of scrutiny in a separate Original Application, being Original Application No. 135 of 1996 which was subjudice before Tribunal, yet it was observed in para 30 of the judgment dated 10.9.1997 that, "..... This is, however, not to suggest that officers who are included in the year-wise select list are to be given promotion retrospectively from the year in which they are selected." These observations in para No. 30 of the judgment dated 10.9.1997, it was argued before the Tribunal in the review petition, would prejudice the decision in Original Application No. 1357 of 1996 in which a relief regarding grant of retrospective seniority has been claimed. The Tribunal disposed of the review application wide its order dated 24.10.1997, thereby directing that the objectionable observation in para 30 of its judgment dated 10.9.1997 would stand deleted.