LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-66

SATISH KUMAR BANSAL Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On July 18, 2006
SATISH KUMAR BANSAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHANWAR Singh, J. This writ petition is directed against the impugned seniority list of January 5, 2004, as contained in Annexure-1. This list alleged to be contrary to the rules is sought to be quashed. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider them for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger in accordance with the erstwhile seniority list of July 23, 2003 with modification of the said list pursuant to this Court's order dated 16-9-2003 excluding the names of Deputy Forest Rangers whose appointments were based on ad hoc or officiating basis.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the petitioners' case is that the seniority list dated 23-7-2003 was issued on the basis of the substantive appointment of Deputy Forest Rangers. According to the U. P. Subordinate Forest Service (Rangers, Deputy Rangers and Foresters) Rules, 1951 (hereafter known to be as the Rules, 1951), the Conservator of Forests is the appointing authority of the Foresters and Deputy Forest Rangers (Rule 12), whereas the appointing authority of Forest Rangers is the Chief Conservator of Forests. The post of Chief Conservator of Forests has been redesignated as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests who is the Head of Department.

(3.) THIS Court, vide its order of September 16, 2003, stayed the operation of the said seniority list as induction of the officiating Deputy Forest Rangers was considered to be contrary to the rules and as such illegal. The Chief Conservator Forests (Administration and Planning) U. P. Lucknow taking wrong advantage of this Court's clear-cut direction modified the seniority list and distorted it and thereby complicated the whole issue. The said authority ignored the rules and went beyond the scope of the modification as directed by this Court as also by the Services Tribunal. Again, the respondent No. 3 included in the seniority list the officiating Deputy Forest Rangers against the rules and also included those Foresters/range Clerks who were superseded but promoted subsequently. Such Foresters/range; Clerks were granted seniority on the basis of their initial cadre which was again in conflict with the Rules, 1951. As a consequence, the seniority of the petitioners in the impugned seniority list was lowered down by hundreds of position and this resulted in serious prejudice to them. It is in these circumstances, the impugned seniority list has been challenged by the petitioners.