NANDAN BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition before us is by Nandan Bhargava, who is at present Conservator of Forests, Planning and Demarcation, Rajasthan, and by it he seeks to challenge an order of the State Government reverting him from the post of the Ch,ief Conservator of Forests with effect from 5 November 1962, when he had already held that post since 4 September 1961 from which date he was appointed to officiate as Chief Conservator of Forests on the expiry of the tenure o one Sri N. N. Sen The petitioner has also made grievance of the successive two Appointment to the post of Chief Conservator subsequent to his reversion :first K. B. M' Mohan Lal, respondent 4, was appointed end subsequent to that R. K. Chaturvedi, respondent 3, was appointed on that post. The petitioner also seeks a direction for ex-punction of certain adverse entries paid to have been made in the confidential report of the petitioner. The case that ha has Bet out in the writ petition is briefly this:

(2.) THE petitioner who was Chief Corservator of Forests in the former United State of Rajasthan came to be fixed up as a Conservator of Forest in the integrated sot-up of the new United State of Rajasthan. He Bays that he was a appointed to officiate as Chief Conservator of Equivalent Citation Forests on several occasions, but lastly be was appointed to officiate as Chief Conservator of Forests on 4 September 1961, on the vacancy caused when the tenure of appointment of Sri N. N. Sen came to an end on 3 September 1961. The matter of appointment to the post of Chief Conservator of Fore-ate, the petitioner maintains, was governed by the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1961, hereinafter to be referred to as the rule, and under Rule 7 (ii) the Government was bound to promote the petitioner who alone fulfilled the required qualifications for being promoted to the post of Chief Conservator of Forest in substantive capacity. Taking his stand on Rule 7 (ii) the petitioner submit? that there was no provision for making on officiating appointment and to all Intents and purpose according to him, he was a substantive appointee to the post. He point out that, Rule 28, which provides for emergent, temporary appointments, could not govern his case, as the vacancy against; which he has appointed was not a temporary but a permanent one. The petitioner claims that as he had acquired a right to hold the post of the Chief Conservator of Forest, the Government could not have reverted him and the reversion, as it has visited him with evil consequence, was rendered to be one in the nature of reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution and as this was ordered in contravention of the rules, without affording him an opportunity to have his say against the action, it was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. K. B. Mohan Lal, respondent 4, who was retired Conservator from Assam, was appointed to the post of Chief Conservator of Forests with effect from 5 November 1962 and this, according to the petitioner, was in clear violation of the provision of the rules as the Government had not made the recruitment through the agency of the Rajasthan Public service Commission. Nor had the Government come to hold any definite opinion that during that year no member of the Forest Service was suitable for promotion. Farther, the petitioner proceeds to say, the terms for direct recruitment in such a contingency have to be prescribed by the Government after obtaining the concurrence of the Public Service Commission thereto and this was not done in the present case. Thus, the petitioner urges that K. B, Mohan Lal's appointment was ultra vires and he had no title to bold the post. The petitioner further suggests that there had been manipulations to put. K B. Mohan Lai as Chief Conservator of Forest a by reducing the petitioner and for this the petitioner imputes mala fides to R. K. Chaturvedi who was then Revenue Secretary in charge of the Forest Equivalent Citation Department. He avers that Chaturvedi had made adverse remarks in his confidential report (document 6) without any justification whatsoever in clear contravention of the Government; Circular dated 8 February 1962 and Memorandum dated 30 November 1962. He, therefore, prays for expunction of these remarks as well.

(3.) THE writ petition has been contested by respondents 1 to 3. K. B. Mohan Lal, respondent 4, has, however, not appeared in this Court and that was for the obvious reason that he had since retired and is no longer In the service of the State of Rajasthan. Traversing the averment made in the writ petitioner, it is submitted by the contending respondents that the petitioner war appointed only in an officiating capacity as a stopgap arrangement and it is not correct on his part to claim that he was a substantive holder of the post. As regards the applicability of Rule 7 (ii) of the rules, it is pointed out that tie proviso thereunder gives a discretion to the Government to examine the suitability of persons in the next below cadre and there could be no promotion until and unless a member of the service was found suitable according to the criterion laid down In the rules and particular reference Is made to Rule 24 in this behalf. It is further submitted that the petitioner's case for promotion, was considered according to the criterion laid down in Rule 24 of rules and, as he was not found suitable for promotion he was reverted to his substantive rank. It is further said that there is a departmental promotion committee for assessing the suitability of the candidates for promotion and as the departmental promotion committee, after going through the record of the petitioner, did not recommend him for promotion as Chief Conservator of Forests, the Government did not approve of his appointment according to the recommendations of the departmental promotion committee. As regards the appointment of K. B. Mohan Lai, it is submitted that his appointment was made after the departmental promotion committee had sent its recommendation that the Government should consider the desirability of having a direct recruit as the petitioner was not suitable and when the recommendation had been accepted by the Government. It is denied by the respondents that the reversion of the petitioner, in the circumstances, involved any violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is also denied that Chaturvedi was actuated with any malice against the petitioner in making the adverse remarks in the confidential reports submitted by him. It is also urged on behalf of the respondents that the instructions Equivalent Citation regarding preparation of confidential reports are purely administrative in character and they are liable to be changed from time to time and they are not Justiciable and consequently this Court should not take any notice of them. It is also stated that the writ petition has been filed after a good deal of delay.