SRI SUSHANTA GUPTA Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Sr. counsel Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel Mr. P. Majumder for the petitioner; learned Addl. G.A. Mrs. A.S. Lodh for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and learned counsel Mr. P. Dutta for the respondent No. 5, The Tripura Public Service Commission.

(2.) THE petitioner, inter alia, contended that he was appointed in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest (for short, ACF) through the Tripura Public Service Commission (for short, TPSC) under the State -respondents on 01.03.1982 in due process. It was an ex -cadre post since there was no service rule for the post of ACF at the relevant point of time. He was also sent for two years diploma course in Forestry and he completed the course. The Govt. of Tripura made the Tripura Forest Service Rules 1988 and it came into force w.e.f. 5.6.1988. After the Tripura Forest Service Rules, 1988 came into force, as per provisions prescribed in Rule 18, a Committee was constituted to consider and recommend the names of the eligible officers working in the post of ACF, in ex -cadre post, for their encadrement and the Committee headed by the Chairman of Tripura Public Service Commission, held its meeting on 05.07.1991 and recommended the names of the eligible candidates but the Committee found the petitioner unsuitable and therefore, wrongly did not recommend the name of the petitioner based on a vigilance observation of the year 1991 and therefore, the petitioner was not encadred whereas his juniors i.e. respondent Nos. 6 to 16 were encadred and they became senior to the petitioner. The proceedings of the Committee meeting dated 05.07.1991 has been annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner was supposed to be encadered w.e.f. 1988 whereas taking into consideration the vigilance observation of 1991, his encadrement was refused by the State -respondents based on the wrong and illegal recommendation of the Committee. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary (Forest Secretary) of the Govt. of Tripura (Annexure -3 to the writ petition through proper channel seeking remedy of his deprivation and claimed encadrement w.e.f. the year 1988. That representation was forwarded by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Respondent No. 3) with a detailed office note (Annexure -4 to the writ petition) recommending that the petitioner was actually deprived and that he was entitled to be encadred w.e.f. 1998. But the respondents vide memorandum dated 30.04.2009 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition) rejected the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner also challenged the final seniority list as on 06.06.1989, published vide memo dated 20.06.2009 (Annexure -8 to the writ petition) and prayed for quashing memo dated 30.04.2009 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition), memo dated 20.06.1989 (Annexure -8 to the writ petition) and also a office note dated 26.03.2009 (Annexure -6 to the writ petition) and inter alia prayed for directing the respondents to give him the benefit of encadrement w.e.f. the year 1988 and consequential promotion etc.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 also submitted counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the Committee consisting of three members headed by the Chairman of Tripura Public Service Commission was constituted as per the provisions of the Tripura Forest Service Rules and the Committee considered the service records, ACRs and other relevant materials of all officers working in the post of ACF and after considering all relevant materials, the Committee found the petitioner not suitable for encadrement for the time being and accordingly, he was not encadred as per recommendation of the Committee but subsequently in the year 2000 he was not encadred in the cadre of ACF.