Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... vs Shri. Uddhao Pandurang Patil And Ors. on 10 October, 2025
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik, N. R. Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:44012-DB
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
signed by
URMILA
URMILA PRAMOD
PRAMOD INGALE
INGALE Date:
2025.10.10
WRIT PETITION NO. 10958 OF 2015
17:39:28
+0530
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 282 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10958 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary (Forests)
Revenue & Forest Dept. Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032. ...Petitioner
Versus
1.Uddhao Pandurang Patil
Flat No.102, Krishna Residency,
Manish Nagar, Nagpur - 440 015
2.The Union of India,
Through the Secretary to Government
of India, Ministry of EF&CC,
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003
3.The Union Public Service Commission,
(UPSC), Dholpur House, Shahajahan
Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
4.The Secretary to Government of
India, DoPT, North Block, Central
Secretariat, New Delhi - 110 001. .. Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6228 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 283 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6228 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary (Forests)
Uday S. Jagtap 1
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 02:55:11 :::
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
Revenue & Forest Dept. Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032. ...Petitioner
Versus
1.Atmaram Maniram Rathod
Rtd. District Forest Officer,
93, Naik Nagar, Manewada
Nagpur
2.The Union of India,
Through the Secretary to Government
of India, Ministry of EF&CC,
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003
3.The Union Public Service Commission,
(UPSC), Dholpur House, Shahajahan
Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
4.The Secretary to Government of
India, DoPT, North Block, Central
Secretariat, New Delhi - 110 001. .. Respondents
....
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Add. G.P. a/w Ms. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP
for the petitioner - State
Mr. S.G. Raoot for the respondent no.1.
....
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
N. R. BORKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13th AUGUST, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th OCTOBER, 2025.
UPLOADED ON : 10th OCTOBER, 2025.
Uday S. Jagtap 2
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 02:55:11 :::
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
JUDGMENT :
- (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.)
1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction
of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the judgment
and order dated 9th October 2014 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai
("Tribunal" for short) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 777
of 2011. By the said order, the Tribunal directed the Union
of India as well as the State Government to reconsider the
induction of respondent no.1 to the Indian Forest Service
("IFS" for short). These O.A.'s were disposed of by the
Tribunal by a common order. Hence, we dispose these
petitions by a common judgment and order. The facts are
almost identical. Reference to facts in Writ Petition No.
10958 of 2015 should suffice.
2. Challenging the Tribunal's order, it is the
petitioner - State of Maharashtra's case that the
respondent no.1 has no vested right of induction into the
IFS only on account of delay in cadre review which was
due in the year 2007. Learned AGP pressed into service
that Regulation 5(3) of the Indian Forest Service
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1996
("Regulations" for short) is mandatory in nature and the
respondent no.1 having crossed the prescribed age bar,
was rightly not considered for induction in IFS in the year
2009.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the
petitioner - State Government / competent authority is
responsible for the Administration of Maharashtra State
Forest Service and for processing cadre review proposals
relating to the induction of State Forest Service Officers
into IFS.
4. The respondent no.1 belongs to 1983-84 batch of
Maharashtra Public Service Commission ("MPSC" for short)
selectees. He joined service as Assistant Conservator of
Forest after completing prescribed training. He was
subsequently promoted as Divisional Forest Officer (DFO)
w.e.f. 20th January 1997. Under the Indian Forest Service
(Cadre) Rules, 1966 ("Cadre Rules" for short), the officers
of the State Forest Service are eligible to be inducted in
IFS against available vacancies in the Maharashtra Cadre.
The strength of the cadre is periodically reviewed under
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
Rule 4(2), requiring re-examination every 5 years. The
cadre reviews in respect of the Maharashtra IFS cadre
were carried out in 1997, 2002 and thereafter due in 2007.
The process of cadre review for 2007 was initiated in June
2006. Necessary proposals were submitted by the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. The same were
processed through concerned State department. The final
proposal was forwarded to the Government of India on 7 th
September 2009. Following scrutiny and approval, the
notification determining cadre strength was issued by the
Central Government on 14th May 2010.
5. The respondent no.1 was considered for induction
into IFS against the vacancies of 2004, 2006, 2007 and
2008 but was not selected. He became eligible for
consideration against one vacancy in 2009. However, by
that time, he had crossed the maximum permissible age
of 54 years under Regulation 5(3) of the IFS (Appointment
by Promotion) Regulations, 1996 and was, therefore,
rendered ineligible. The respondent no.1 approached the
Tribunal in 2011 claiming relief based on the mandatory
nature of cadre review time lines under Rule 4(2), relying
on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
India & Anr. V. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors. 1 and S.
Ramanathan V. Union of India & Ors.2 in support of his
case.
6. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 9 th
October 2014 directed the Union and State Government to
reconsider the case of respondent no.1 by holding a
review DPC / Selection Committee for the year 2007
cadre review cycle and, if found entitled, to grant notional
induction benefits.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1
supported the order passed by the Tribunal. Our attention
is invited to the findings of the Tribunal to contend that no
interference is warranted in the well considered findings
rendered.
8. Heard. We have perused the records, impugned
order and the relevant Rules and Regulations. Let us in
the first instance refer to the relevant provisions of the
Rules and Regulations. Rule 4(2) of the cadre rules reads
thus :-
1 (2010) 4 SCC 290
2 (2001) 2 SCC 118
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
"4(2) The Central Government shall, ordinarily at the
interval of every five years, re-examine the strength and
composition of each such cadre in consultation with the
State Government concerned and may make such
alterations therein as it deems fit.
Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed
to affect the power of the Central Government to alter the
strength and composition of any cadre at any other time:
Provided further that the State Government concerned
may add for a period not exceeding two years, and with
the approval of the Central Government for a further
period not exceeding three years to a State or Joint Cadre
one or more posts carrying duties or responsibilities of a
like nature to cadre posts."
9. Regulation 5(3) of the Indian Forest Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1996 reads
thus :-
"5(3) The Committee shall not consider the cases of the
members of the State Forest Service who have attained
the age of 54 years {on the first day of [January] of the
year for which the Select List is prepared}:
Provided that a member of the State Forest Service
whose name appears in the Select List [prepared for the
earlier year] before the date of the meeting of the
Committee and who has not been appointed to the service
only because he was included [provisionally in that Select
List] shall be considered for inclusion in the fresh list to
be prepared by the Committee, even if he has in the
meanwhile, attained the age of fifty four years.
Provided further that a member of the State Forest
Service who has attained the age of fifty four years {on
the first day of [January] of the year for which the Select
List is prepared} shall be considered by the Committee, if
he was eligible for consideration on the first day of
"January of the year or any of the years immediately
preceding the year in which such meeting is held but
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
could not be considered as no meeting of the Committee
was held during such preceding year or years under item
(b) of the proviso to sub-regulation(1)"."
(emphasis supplied)
10. The respondent no.1 was considered against the
vacancies available in 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008, but he
was not selected. In the year 2009 he was eligible to be
considered against one vacancy. Respondent no.1's date
of birth is 5th March 1955. He completed 54 years as on 1st
January 2010. Hence, his name is not included in the zone
of consideration against the vacancies for the year 2010.
11. Learned AGP submitted that in respect of the
cadre review, which was due in 2007, the same was
actually not done in 2007 but it was done in 2010. Sixty
two posts became available for induction in IFS from the
year 2010 and not from the year 2007. The revised cadre
strength as per the cadre review done in the year 2010
came into force from the date of publication by the
Government of India on 14th May 2010.
12. Regulation 5 deals with the preparation of a list of
suitable officers. The Regulations were amended on 31 st
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
December 1997 and 25th July 2000. Regulation 5(3)
provides that the committee shall not consider the cases
of the members of the State Forest Service who have
attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of
the year for which the select list is prepared. Regulation
5(4) provides that the list shall be prepared by including
the required number of names first from amongst the
officers finally classified as 'outstanding' then from
amongst those similarly classified as 'Very Good' and
thereafter from amongst those similarly classified as
'Good'. According to Rule 4(2) of the cadre rules, the
Central Government shall, ordinarily at the interval of
every five years, reexamine the strength and composition
of each such cadre in consultation with the State
Government concerned and may make such alterations
therein as it deems fit.
13. The State Government had done the exercise of
cadre review in 2002. The next cadre review was due in
2007 but the same was not done. Finally, the cadre review
was done in 2010. At the time when the cadre review was
done, the vacancy position had increased to 62 and by
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
that time the respondent no.1 crossed the age of 54 years.
The respondent no.1, whose date of birth is 5th March 1955
had completed 54 years of age as on 1st January 2010.
14. The officers who had not completed 54 years of
age as on 1st January 2010 were to be considered as per
their seniority in promotion to the IFS. It was for this
reason that the respondent no.1's name was not included
in the zone of consideration against the vacancies for the
year 2010. The Tribunal found legitimacy in the grievance
of the respondent no.1 that had the cadre review been
done in 2007, the respondent no.1 could have been
considered against the available vacancies for promotion /
induction in the IFS. The Tribunal found that for no fault on
his part, the legitimate right of consideration for
promotion has been denied by illegal and arbitrary action
of the authorities in delaying undertaking cadre review for
3 years. The Tribunal found the delay of 3 years to be
unexplained and not justified.
15. The question is whether we should interfere with
the findings of the Tribunal. For this purpose, let us
consider the reasons provided by the State Government in
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
undertaking the cadre review in 2010, which it should
have actually done in 2007 itself. The State Government
sent proposal to the Government of India in May 2008.
The Government of India, in July 2009, suggested some
modifications in the proposal to remove stagnation in the
cadre. Accordingly, the revised proposal was sent to the
Government of India on 7th September 2009. The meeting
to consider the revised proposal was held at the level of
Government of India on 11th September 2009. Thereafter,
the Government of India, vide its letter dated 15 th
September 2009, communicated the sanction to 126 posts
and asked the State Government to inform the
nomenclature of these posts. The State Government, vide
letter dated 16th December 2009, informed the
nomenclature and suggested some changes in the cadre
strength so that the reversion of some officers could be
avoided. Finally, the Government of India informed the
cadre strength in respect of the State Government vide
Notification dated 14th May 2010.
16. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the
Ministry of Environment and Forest vide letter dated 2 nd
December 2011, addressed to the Government of
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
Maharashtra in response to their letter dated 4 th May
2011, declined to give retrospective effect to the cadre
review from 2010 to 2007.
17. At this juncture, it is significant to make a
reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent no.1. In
S. Ramanathan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
considering the provisions of Indian Forest Service (Cadre)
Rules, 1954. The observations in para 6 are significant,
which reads thus :-
"6. The question, therefore arises for consideration is as to
what is the effect of Rule 4(2) of the Cadre Rules as it stood
prior to its amendment in the year 1995 and if there has been
an infraction in the matter of compliance of the said Rule,
what direction could be given to the appropriate authority?
The Cadre Rules are statutory in nature, having been framed
by Central Government in exercise of powers under Sub-
section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951.
The language of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, as it stood prior to its
amendment is rather peremptory in nature and thus it
requires that the Central Government has to re-examine the
strength and composition of each cadre in consultation with
the State Government concerned and make such alteration
therein as it deems fit. It is no doubt true that an infraction of
the aforesaid provisions does not confer a vested right with an
employee for requiring the Court to issue any mandamus. But
it cannot be denied that if there has been an infraction of the
provisions and no explanation is forthcoming from the Central
Government, indicating the circumstances under which the
exercise could not be undertaken, the aggrieved party may
well approach a Court and a Court in its turn would be well
within its jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions,
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
depending upon the circumstances of the case. When certain
power has been conferred upon the Central Government for
examining the cadre strength, necessarily the same is coupled
with a duty to comply with the requirements of the law and
any infraction on that score cannot be whittled down on the
hypothesis that no vested right of any employee is being
jeopardised. The learned Additional Solicitor General is not in
a position to refute the fact that in the event, the cadre
strength, which has in fact increased in the year 1991 is taken
into account, then in the matter of determination on the
question of promotion, some additional advantage could be
available to the employees in the erstwhile State Cadre, who
have been considered for promotion to the Indian Police
Service. That apart when Rules and Regulations provide for
certain things to be done at a certain period, the same should
normally be observed and if there has been a failure, the Court
should compel the performance of that duty. In the case of
Sayad Khalid Rizvi V. Union of India 1993 Supp (3) SCC 575,
a three Judge Bench of this Court had examined the provisions
of the IPS (Regulations of Seniority) Rules, 1994 and other
provisions of the Recruitment Rules, Cadre Rules and
Appointment by Promotion Regulation and it was observed:
(SCC p.590 para 14)
"The leeway and liberty given to the State Government
under Regulation 8 of Promotion Regulations read with
Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules is only to cope up with
administrative exigencies but it became a breeding
ground to distort the operation of the Rules which should
scrupulously be eschewed and avoided."
The Court examined in the aforesaid case the question
whether the failure to prepare the select list would give rise to
an inference that Rules have been collapsed and the State
Government''s local arrangement shall be given legitimacy as
regular appointments. After giving anxious consideration to
the end resultants, the Court had found it hard to accept the
same. The Court observed that the State Government and the
Central Government should strictly comply with the provisions
in making Recruitment by promotion from the State Service to
the All India Services and if laxity has to be given legitimacy
and deemed relaxation is extended, it would not only upset
the smooth working of the Rules but also undo the prescribed
ratio between promotee officers and direct recruits. It is in
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
that context, the Court ultimately issued certain directions to
be complied with by the Central Government, after taking
objections from the promotees who were included in the
notional list for different years. The aforesaid decision, no
doubt is in relation to the placement of an employee in the
select list and has no direct application to the case in hand,
but the observations made with regard to performance of
duties of a statutory authority should equally apply to the case
in hand. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal proceeds on
the assumption that the decision of this Court in R.R.S.
Chouhan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), which
was a decision in relation to an officer of the Indian Forest
Service governs the field. In that case, the Court was
examining the question whether an officer even if was
continuously officiating on a senior post, can avail of the
benefit of the said officiation in view of the fact that in the
subsequent select list, the names of those officers have not
been included. The aforesaid decision is of no assistance to us
in the present case where the question for consideration is,
when the competent authority fails to discharge its obligation,
conferred under the statute, could the Court compel the
authority for such performance and if so, what would be the
mode of relief to be given, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. In the case of S.L. Kaul V. Secy. To
Govt. of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 1989
Supp (1) SCC 147, on which, Dr. Dhawan had placed reliance,
the Court was considering the question of up gradation of
posts and the seniority and promotion to those posts on the
basis of length of continuous service. The Court in fact had
observed that the incumbents have not to suffer for the lapse
on the part of the Government in delay in amending the
Schedule to the Rules. We fail to understand, as to how this
decision will be of any assistance to us in arriving at an
appropriate conclusion on the question involved. Dr. Dhawan,
had strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in R.S.
Mittal V. Union of India 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230 whereunder
this Court having come to the conclusion that the Central
Government''s approach was wholly unjustified, yet refused to
grant the relief to the applicant in the peculiar facts of the
case. But the relief, which has been sought for in the present
appeals, namely a direction to the Union Government to
reconsider the question of promotion to the Indian Police
Service on the basis of their own fixation of cadre strength,
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
which they did in the year 1991, though it was supposed to
have been done in the year 1987. The general principles, as
indicated in the Mittal''s case, will have no application,
particularly when the Union Government is totally silent in the
matter of indicating the effect of such a direction. The decision
of this Court in T.N. Administrative Service Officers Assn. v.
Union of India(2000) 5 SCC 728, was also brought to our
notice, in support of the contention that mere delay in
undertaking the review will not ipso facto entitle an employee
to get a writ of mandamus from the Court. But in that case,
Court was considering the infraction of Rule 4 of the IAS
Cadre Rules and undoubtedly, there has been delay in
undertaking such review and consequential delay in
preparation of select list but that delay was found to have
been sufficiently explained by the Union Government and
that, therefore, the Court said that the question of fixation of
seniority of the promotees with retrospective effect cannot be
granted. In the case in hand, in the absence of any explanation
for not conducting the triennial review within the specified
period of three years, the aforesaid decision will have no
application. The decision of this Court in Ramesh Chand
Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal (1999) 8 SCC 304, was also
pressed into service in support of the contention that the
appellants had approached the Tribunal beyond limitation,
provided u/s 19 and, therefore are not entitled to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136, even if there has
been an infraction of the statutory obligation, which lay on the
authority to have the triennial review. We are not persuaded to
accept this submission inasmuch as the appellants approached
the Tribunal, the moment the competent authority re-
determined the cadre strengthen the year 1991, and,
therefore, it cannot be said that there has been laches on the
part of the appellants to approach the Administrative Tribunal.
One other decision, which may be noticed at this stage is the
case of Devendra Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar (1996) 11
SCC 342, to which one of us, Pattanaik, J was a party. In that
case, the appropriate authority had committed error in not
preparing the select list for a particular year and pursuant to a
direction of this Court the employee''s name was included in
the select list of a later year and ultimately this Court observed
that the select list in question must be held to be of the
relevant year, wherein on account of error committed by the
appropriate authority the name could not be included. This
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
indicates that the Court has been insisting performance of
duty upon the authority under the statute quite meticulously
and on the admitted position that the process of determining
the cadre strength was initiated in the year 1989 and it was
finalised in the year 1991, there is no rhyme and reason why
the respondents will not be directed to reconsider the question
on the basis of the altered strength of the cadre, as if it was so
altered in the year 1989 when the process of determination of
cadre strength was initiated. We, accordingly set aside the
impugned orders of the Tribunal and direct the Union
Government as well as the State Government to reconsider the
question of promotion of the State Cadre Officers to the Indian
Police Service on the basis of the re-determined strength of the
cadre, treating the same to be in the year 1989 and if on such
a reconsideration relief would be available to any of the
appellants for promotion to the IPS on the basis of the quota
available to them in the cadre, the same may be given to
them. This exercise may be done within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of this order."
18. The other important decision has been rendered
in Hemraj Singh Chauhan (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme
Court was considering Rule 4(2) of the India Forest Service
(Cadre) Rules, 1966. The employees who were State Civil
Service Officers were expecting promotion to India
Administrative Service under the promotion quota.
However, the cadre review, which ought to have been
done in 2003, was actually done in 2005. Delay was
mainly due to inaction on the part of the State
Government. In the meantime, the employees crossed
the upper age limit of 54 years and became ineligible for
consideration of promotion. Their contention before the
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
Administrative Tribunal was that cadre review should be
given effect retrospectively from 2003 and they should be
considered for promotion accordingly. This contention was
rejected by the Tribunal. However, the High Court held
that the cadre review done in 2005 should be deemed to
have been done in 2003 and the respondents be
considered for promotion accordingly. The directions of the
High Court were affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Their Lordships accepted the argument of learned counsel
for the Union of India that Rule 4(2) cannot be construed
to have any retrospective operation and will operate
prospectively. But in the facts and circumstances of the
case, it was held that the Court can, especially having
regard to its power under Article 142 of the Constitution,
give suitable directions in order to mitigate the hardship
and denial of legitimate rights of the employees. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court was satisfied that, for the delayed
exercise of statutory function the Government has not
offered any plausible explanation. Their Lordships
observed that the employees cannot be made anyway
responsible for the delay. In such a situation, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court found that the directions given by the High
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. It is in such
circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated
those very directions issued by the High Court in exercise
of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
subject to the only rider that in normal cases, the
provision of Rule 4(2) of the said cadre rules cannot be
construed retrospectively.
19. In the instant case, the cadre review was due in
the year 2007. Had the cadre review taken place in 2007,
the respondent no.1 would have been eligible to be
considered. However, when the cadre review actually took
place in the year 2010, the respondent no.1 had crossed
the age of 54 years and, therefore, was not considered.
As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Central
Government and the State Government are to act as
model employers, which is consistent with their role in a
welfare State. It is accepted legal position that the right
of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is
virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 16 of the Constitution. We have no hesitation
in holding that the legitimate expectation of the
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
respondent no.1 of being considered for promotion, in the
present case, has been defeated as a result of the delay in
holding cadre review.
20. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hemraj Singh Chauhan (supra) para 39
to 42 made some significant observations, which read
thus :-
"39. The learned counsel for the appellants has also urged
that the statutory mandate of a cadre review exercise every
five years is qualified by the expression "ordinarily". So if it
has not been done within five years that does not amount to a
failure of exercise of a statutory duty on the part of the
authority contemplated under the Rule.
40. This Court is not very much impressed with the
aforesaid contention. The word "ordinarily" must be given its
ordinary meaning. While construing the word the Court must
not be oblivious of the context in which it has been used. In
the case in hand the word "ordinarily" has been used in the
context of promotional opportunities of the officers concerned.
In such a situation the word "ordinarily" has to be construed
in order to fulfil the statutory intent for which it has been
used.
41. The word "ordinarily", of course, means that it does
not promote a cast-iron rule, it is flexible (see Jasbhai
Motibhai Desai V. Roshan Kumar (1976) 1 SCC 671 at SCC
p.682, para 35). It excludes something which is extraordinary
or special (Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs (2001) 1
SCC 315 at SCC p.319, para 6). the word "ordinarily" would
convey the idea of something which is done "normally"
(Krishan Gopal v. Prakashchandra (1974) 1 SCC 134, para 12)
and "generally" subject to special provision (Mohan Baitha v.
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
State of Bihar (2001) 4 SCC 350 at SCC p.354.
42. Concurring with the aforesaid interpretative exercise,
we hold that the statutory duty which is cast on the State
Government and the Central Government to undertake the
cadre review exercise every five years is ordinarily mandatory
subject to exceptions which may be justified in the facts of a
given case. Surely lethargy, inaction, an absence of a sense of
responsibility cannot fall within the category of just
exceptions."
21. It is thus, the statutory duty cast on the State
Government and the Central Government to undertake the
cadre review exercise every 5 years, which is ordinarily
mandatory, subject to exceptions which may be justified in
the facts of the given case.
22. The respondent's case though not covered by the
first proviso to Regulation 5(3), it is pertinent to note that
a contingency is carved out when a member of the State
Forest Service who though has attained the age of 54
years, can be considered. This is an indication that
crossing the age of 54 years is not an absolute bar for
consideration. We, therefore, have to find out whether the
Tribunal has made a just exception in the present facts on
the touchstone of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Though Regulation 5(3) has to be strictly
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
construed in view of the mandatory nature of the
phraseology used ("shall not consider the cases"), the
same will have to be considered, due regard being had to
the provisions of Rule 4(2) of the Cadre Rules.
23. We do not find the reasoning of the Tribunal to be
perverse or such that the same warrants interference. The
explanation offered by the Petitioner - State Government
for the delay in undertaking the exercise is not justifiable.
Therefore, the delayed exercise cannot be justified within
the meaning of "ordinarily" within Rule 4(2) in the facts of
this case. We are in respectful agreement with the
observations of the Tribunal that there is unjustified delay
on the part of the authorities in carrying out the cadre
review which stifles the legitimate claim of the respondent
no.1.
24. Learned AGP submitted that the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemraj Singh Chauhan (supra)
is in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India and it is not open for this Court under
Articles 226 and 227 to go into the aspect of delay in
conducting the cadre review. The Tribunal has, in the
10958-2015-WP-Jud.doc
instant case, on a sound reasoning, directed the Union
Government as well as State Government to reconsider
the question of promotion / induction of respondent no.1
to IFS by holding a review DPC/ Selection Committee for
the year 2007 cadre review cycle and, if found entitled, to
grant notional inductions benefits available to respondent
no.1. Having regard to the nature of the directions issued
by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the
order of the Tribunal in the exercise of our writ jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
25. The Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
26. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petitions,
pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
(N. R. BORKAR, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
