ONKAR PRASAD TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No.13396/2012(S), Writ Petition No.13303/2012(S), Writ Petition No.13481/2012(S), Writ Petition No.13489/2012(S), Writ Petition No.13610/2012(S), Writ Petition No.14030/2012(S), Writ Petition No.14576/2012(S), Writ Petition No.260/2013(S), Writ Petition No.292/2013(S), Writ Petition No.321/2013(S), Writ Petition No.331/2013(S), Writ Petition No.426/2013(S), Writ Petition No.438/2013(S), Writ Petition No.470/2013(S), Writ Petition No.553/2013(S), Writ Petition No.554/2013(S) and Writ Petition No.677/2013(S), as a common question is involved in all these petitions.

(2.) The petition is directed against the order dated 3.1.2013 issued by respondents posting the petitioner, a Forest Range Officer, in working plan, alleging that such a posting of the petitioner was not permissible in view of the decision rendered by this Court in a Writ Petition No.7121/2010(S) decided on 12.10.2010. It is further contended that since under the new policy made for posting of Forest Range Officer in working plan, an amendment was made and exemption from such posting granted under the earlier policy was made applicable in the new policy, no such order of posting of petitioner in working plan could have been issued. It is contended that by a circular dated 12.12.2011 while making amendment in the new policy of posting in working plan, it was reiterated that the benefit of exemption from posting in the working plan granted under the earlier policy will remain operative, therefore, the order impugned could not have been issued and the petitioner could not have been sent on working plan. Thus, it is contended that the order posting the petitioner in working plan as contained in Annx.P/1 is bad in law. It is further contended that so far as the petitioner in this writ petition is concerned, a modified order of posting was issued by the respondent No.2 in his respect only on 11.7.2012 and the petitioner was posted in Forest Range Ghunghuti Territorial Forest Division Umaria, therefore, such a posting of petitioner by the impugned order is perse illegal. It is, thus, contended that the order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The respondents while filing the return have contended that the policy decision was taken by the State Government to post Forest Rangers in working plan as per the requirement vide a new policy dated 25.3.2011. In the said policy, it was specifically said that Forest Rangers whether recruited by promotion or direct recruitment were to be posted strictly in order of seniority in the working plan. It was further contended that those who were earlier exempted from posting in the working plan under the earlier policy were also to be posted in working plan strictly in order of seniority. It was categorically said that on account of age or otherwise no exemption would be available to the Forest Rangers from posting in the working plan. Such a policy decision was taken, new policy was formulated superseding all earlier policies and the policy was made applicable from the date of its publication.