SURJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the Selection Committee dated 15.09.2000 and 21.09.2001 by which respondent No. 5 has been selected and appointed by promotion to Indian Forest Service and the order dated 06.03.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, dismissing O.A. No. 994-PB of 2001 filed by the petitioner. A further direction is sought to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to re-convene the meeting of the Select Committee and to consider the case of the petitioner as well as of respondent No. 5 for promotion to the Indian Forest Services.

(2.) The petitioner joined the State Forest Service as Forest Ranger on 03.04.1970. He was promoted to PFS-1I on 24.07.1987. At the time of filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner was holding the post of Divisional Forest Officer, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Since the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner has superannuated at the age of 58 years on 30.06.2003. The petitioner claims that throughout the service record of the petitioner has been very good. The next promotion from PFS-II is to the Indian Forest Service. The appointment by promotion to Indian Forest Service is governed by the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The controversy in the present case relates to the vacancy which arose on 01.01.1999. The Select Committee held its meeting on 14.09.2000 and considered the record of four officers including that of the petitioner. Respondent No. 5 was placed at serial No. 1 of the select list. Subsequently, the petitioner learnt that in the meeting of the Select Committee held on 15.09.2000, the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the year 1993-94 and 1998-98 had not been forwarded. By mistake, the reports of another officer of the same name, i.e. Surjit Singh son of Tara Singh had been forwarded. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation. The representation of the petitioner was accepted and the matter was reconsidered. The correct Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner were placed before the reconvened Selection Committee. Since the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the period from 1.4.1997 to 31.10.1997 had not been recorded, a certificate issued by the superior/reporting officer was forwarded to the Selection Committee. The report of the year 1993-94 indicated that the petitioner had earned a very good report and the certificate for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.10.1997 had graded the petitioner as outstanding, although no formal Annual Confidential Report had been recorded. After reconsidering the matter, the Selection Committee had maintained its earlier order i.e. respondent, No. 5 remains at serial No. 1 and the petitioner has not been selected. The petitioner challenged the original decision dated 15.09.2000 and the subsequent decision dated 21.09.2001 by way of O.A. No. 994-PB of 2001. The Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. and the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order as well,

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the proceedings of the Select Committee which culminated in the selection of respondent No. 5 on 15.09.2000, are vitiated on the short ground that the correct record of the petitioner had not been before the Select Committee. However, the illegality committed by the Select Committee on 15.09.2000, was rectified by respondent No. 6 and the correct record of the petitioner was placed before the subsequently reconvened Select Committee which gave its findings on 21.09.2001. Learned counsel, however, submitted that even the findings of the reconvened Select Committee are vitiated on a number of grounds. Firstly, the Select Committee has considered only the record for the five years preceding the date on which the vacancy occurred. Secondly, the outstanding work done by the petitioner between 01.04.1997 to 21.10.1997 has been ignored by the Select Committee only on the technical ground that a regular Annual Confidential Report has not been recorded. Consequently, only four years and three months record of the petitioner has been compared with five years record of respondent No. 5. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid two grounds are sufficient to render the decision of the reconvened Select Committee as arbitrary and suffering from vice of unreasonableness as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 2000(4) R.S.J. 256. The learned counsel has made particular reference to paragraph 40 of the judgment aforesaid in support of his submissions.