THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. UDDHAO PANDURANG PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dtd. 9/10/2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai ("Tribunal" for short) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 777 of 2011. By the said order, the Tribunal directed the Union of India as well as the State Government to reconsider the induction of respondent no.1 to the Indian Forest Service ("IFS" for short). These O.A.'s were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order. Hence, we dispose these petitions by a common judgment and order. The facts are almost identical. Reference to facts in Writ Petition No. 10958 of 2015 should suffice.

(2.) Challenging the Tribunal's order, it is the petitioner . State of Maharashtra's case that the respondent no.1 has no vested right of induction into the IFS only on account of delay in cadre review which was due in the year 2007. Learned AGP pressed into service that Regulation 5(3) of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1996 ("Regulations" for short) is mandatory in nature and the respondent no.1 having crossed the prescribed age bar, was rightly not considered for induction in IFS in the year 2009.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner . State Government / competent authority is responsible for the Administration of Maharashtra State Forest Service and for processing cadre review proposals relating to the induction of State Forest Service Officers into IFS.