Bombay High Court
Vijayshankar Rammanohar Singh vs The Central Administrative & 60 ... on 16 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp4950.03 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4950 OF 2003
Vijayshankar Rammanohar Singh,
aged about 59 years, occupation-
Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Transport & Marketing Division,
Ballarshaw, District - Chandrapur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Central Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench,
Mumbai.
2. The Union of India
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment &
Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan,
C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003.
3. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary,
Revenue & Forests Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. ... RESPONDENTS
Respondent Nos. 4 to 61 ... Deleted as per Dy. Registrar's
(in-charge Registrar Judicial)
order dated 12.12.2003.
Shri M.M. Sudame, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. M.R. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Shri N.H. Joshi, AGP for respondent No. 3.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
JUNE 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
The petitioner has approached this Court in the
backdrop of an earlier adjudication in Writ Petition No. 1712 of
1999 by the Division Bench of this Court (Vijayshankar
Rammanohar Singh vs. Union of India & Anr.). That writ
petition assailed the judgment delivered by the Central
Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1471 of
1995. The petitioner had sought setting aside of order dated
11.01.1994 issued by the Government of India, communicating
to him the order of allotment to Indian Forest Service (I.F.S.).
He further wanted relief of consideration of his entitlement to
be promoted to Indian Foreign Service cadre after he had put in
8 years of service in Maharashtra cadre i.e. from 01.04.1976.
The last relief sought for was of considering his entitlement
every year with relation to vacancies available in that year.
2. Shri Sudame, learned counsel submits that the
vacancies becoming available from 1976 till 1987 were pooled
together and in one process along with several others,
entitlement of the petitioner has been examined.
3. We have accordingly heard Shri Sudame, learned
counsel for the petitioner, who has relied upon the Division
Bench judgment of this Court mentioned supra and the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 2078 of 1992 decided on 24.12.1997 (Union of
India & Ors. vs. Jawla Prasad & Ors., reported at (1998) 9 SCC
474). This judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is considered
by the Division Bench mentioned supra while deciding Writ
Petition No. 1712 of 1999 on 01.10.1999.
4. Shri Joshi, learned AGP appearing for respondent
No. 3 and Mrs. Chandurkar, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 2 have relied upon the judgment delivered by
the Central Administrative Tribunal and supported it.
5. The petitioner was appointed on 01.04.1966 as
Assistant Conservator of Forest in the Maharashtra cadre. He
completed his training and joined the post of Assistant
Conservator of Forest at Chandrapur, on 01.04.1968. He
completed two years of probation on 31.03.1970. In this
background, according to Shri Sudame, learned counsel, the
petitioner ought to have been considered for his promotion to
Indian Forest Service cadre after completion of eight years of
service i.e. after 01.04.1976. The petitioner has been promoted
as the Divisional Forest Officer in I.F.S. cadre on 15.10.1987.
As per notification dated 31.08.1992, he has been confirmed in
that cadre on that post from 15.10.1988 itself. By order dated
11.01.1994, his year of allotment and seniority in adherence to
quota rule has been determined as 15.10.1987. It is after this
order dated 11.01.1994 that the petitioner approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.
1471 of 1995.
6. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in SLP (C) No. 2078 of 1992, decided on 24.12.1997
shows that there the dispute was of inter se seniority between
direct recruits and promotees in Indian Forest Service. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that until and unless the year of
allotment is first declared, such a dispute cannot be
appropriately examined. This judgment is looked into by the
Division Bench of this Court in earlier round of litigation and
the matter was sent back after observing that when the Central
Government chose to allot the year of allotment in the year
1994 with retrospective effect from 1987, the petitioner could
not have been held responsible for delay and laches. Thus, the
earlier judgment delivered by the Central Administrative
Tribunal on 22.02.1999 in O.A. No. 1417 of 1995 was set aside.
7. The Central Administrative Tribunal has thereafter
reconsidered the controversy and found that the argument
before it was of non consideration after eight years of service.
This argument and the relief claimed accordingly have been
evaluated and it has been held that O.A. was filed belatedly.
8. The promotion given to the petitioner in I.F.S. cadre
on 15.10.1987 was never in dispute. The petitioner claimed
that he was entitled to that promotion from an earlier date.
This was by placing reliance upon Regulation 5(2), third
proviso of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Regulations,1966. The third proviso on which Shri
Sudame, learned counsel, has placed reliance, reads as under :
"Provided also that the Committee shall not consider
the case of a member of the State Forest Service unless
on the first day of January of the year for which the
Select List is prepared, he is substantive in the State
Forest Service and has completed not less than eight
years of continuous service (whether officiating or
substantive) in post(s) included in the State Forest
Service."
Thus, the petitioner has to demonstrate that on the
first day of January of the year, for which Select List was
prepared, he was substantive in State Forest Service and in
addition, had also completed not less than eight years of
continuous service in that cadre.
9. Here, it is no doubt true that the petitioner
completed eight years of continuous service on 01.04.1976.
However, as per order of confirmation of officers in
Maharashtra Forest Service Class - II dated 11.02.1985, he has
been confirmed in the Maharashtra Forest Service Class - II on
06.04.1979. This communication or date was never in dispute
before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus, before
January 1980, name of the petitioner did not figure as
substantive employee in the State Forest Service. Hence, for
the first time in January 1980, when his name figured as
substantive in the cadre in the State service, as he had also
completed eight years of continuous service by then, his
entitlement to be promoted to I.F.S. cadre could have been
looked into. The petitioner has been promoted to IFS cadre on
15.10.1987. Thus, on 15.10.1987, the petitioner was aware
that his entitlement to that promotion from January 1980
should have been looked into. In fact, cause of action for
demanding such consideration arose on 11.02.1985 itself.
After 11.02.1985, the petitioner did not make any efforts to
have his name considered, he accepted promotion to I.F.S. on
15.10.1987.
10. The order dated 11.01.1994 fixes the date of
promotion of officers to the Maharashtra cadre of Indian
Foreign Services and in it, in the case of the petitioner that date
is fixed as 15.10.1987. This communication, therefore, does
not give rise to any new cause of action to the petitioner. The
petitioner never questioned determination of inter se seniority
of promotees to I.F.S. cadre vis-a-vis direct cadres. He wanted
his berth in I.F.S. cadre from an earlier date.
11. In this situation, we find that the Central
Administrative Tribunal has correctly appreciated the
contention and found that there was delay in approaching it.
12. There is not jurisdiction error or perversity. No case
is made out. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
