DOGE BASAR (ACF) Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Wangmo, learned junior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. None appears on call for the respondents No.4 to 10 although respondents No.4, 5 and 6 have filed their joint affidavit-in-opposition.

(2.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is alleging that he was deprived from his due right of being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF for short) with effect from 28.06.2013.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Range Forest Officer (Group-B Gazetted) (RFO for short) on 11.05.1988. At that point of time, the Recruitment Rules, 1999 was in force and accordingly, the petitioner had the requisite minimum educational qualification as he had passed Class-XII (Science) in the year 1986. As per the gradation list of Range Forest Officers as on 1.10.2010, the name of the petitioner was reflected at Sl. No.50. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner appears just below the respondent No.10 herein, whose name appears at Sl. No.49 of the said gradation list. It is submitted that in or about the year 2012, 15 (fifteen) vacancies arose in the post of ACF, out of which 8 (eight) posts were required to be filled up by direct recruitment through the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC for short) and 7 (seven) posts were earmarked for being filled up by promotion through the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC for short). It is submitted that although DPC was held on 16.11.2012, the cases of officers appearing up to Sl. No.7 of the list i.e. the immediate senior to the petitioner was considered but the candidature of the petitioner was not considered although he had reached the zone of consideration. Thereafter, orders of promotion of the departmental candidates were issued on 30.1.2013. Thereafter, the gradation list of ACF published on 31.1.2013. It is submitted that while selecting the candidates for promotion, their authorities were required to maintain the ratio of 2:1, but as the said requirement was not adhered to, the petitioner was deprived from his name being considered by the DPC. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph 18 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 to show that the said respondents had admitted that the zone of consideration in DPC is 3 (three) times of the post lying vacant. It is submitted that in the said paragraph 18 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been further stated that the contention of the petitioner was that his case not placed before the DPC dated 16.11.2012 was false as his case was also placed before the DPC on 16.11.2012 for consideration and in this regard by referring to the DPC recommendation as reflected in the minutes is referred to and it is submitted that there is no reflection in the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 16.11.2012 that the name of the petitioner was considered by the DPC.