MITHILESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claiming himself to be a social worker, engaged in the activity of assisting unemployed educated persons, has approached this Court by filing a Public Interest Litigation seeking issuance of a Writ of Prohibition, directing the respondentauthorities not to act in furtherance of Resolution dated 28.09.2012 in and by which appointment on the post of Range Forest Officer would be made without consulting the Public Service Commission and thus, in complete violation of Article 320 (3) (a) of the Constitution of India and also for seeking a direction upon the respondents for filling up the post of Range Forest Officers by direct recruitment.

(2.) Brief facts: It is stated that, though the sanctioned strength of Range Forest Officer is 383 and 25% of the posts are required to be filled by way of promotion, more than 40% posts of Range Forest Officer are vacant. The respondents initially decided to make new appointments by way of promotion on the post of Range Forest Officer through the recommendation of the Public Service Commission however, subsequently it was decided to make appointments without consulting the Public Service Commission. One Anand Kumar working as Range Forest Officer, Kharsawan submitted a representation to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission which was forwarded vide letter no. 544 dated 25.02.2012 to the Department of Forest and Environment and thereafter, vide letter dated 19.06.2012 certain clarifications were sought from the department. It is further stated that a Fitment Appellate Committee was constituted vide Resolution dated 15.01.2000 which recommended that Foresters should be promoted to newly created post of Deputy Range Officer. It also recommended that there should be an intermediate level of Head Forest Guard between the Forest Guard and Forester. The recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee is binding on the State. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance also issued Memo dated 11.10.2007 for formulation of service conditions for all departments however, without framing the service conditions for the post of Range Forest Officer, the respondents have decided to promote the persons working on the post of Ranger in the rank of Range Forest Officer. The respondents thus, in the garb of promotion are providing back door entry and intentionally they are not framing rules for promotion and in the absence of the same, any promotion given is illegal and against the provisions of law.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Ranchi Forest Division on behalf of the respondents stating that the issue of promotion cannot be brought into the domain of "Public Interest", the present writ petition is abuse of judicial process and hence deserves to be dismissed. It is stated that vide Resolution dated 21.02.1973 issued by the Government of Bihar the post of "Range Officer of Forest" is redesignated as Range Forest Officer and declared a Gazetted post, subject to certain conditions mentioned in the said resolution however, the said resolution being selfcontradictory, could not be implemented by the government. The said resolution was not taken to its logical conclusion and it was not notified in the official Gazette. The appointing authority of the Range Forest Officer is the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and their grade pay is Rs. 4200/. The post of Range Forest Officer is not the basic grade of State Forest Service rather, Assistant Conservator of Forest which is a higher post, constitutes the basic grade of State Forest Service. The concurrence of State Public Service Commission is required only in those matters of appointment/promotion which relate to the basic grade of State services/cadre. As per rules, a proportion of the sanctioned strength in the rank of Range Forest Officer has to be filled by promotion from the post of rank of Forester. The State Government has decided to promote Foresters to the post of Range Forest Officer against vacancies under the promotion quota and in accordance with the approved roster. It is alleged that the present writ petition has been filed at the instance of the officers in the Range Forest Officer's cadre.