Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/706/2022 on 23 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 706 OF 2022
23RD MARCH, 2023
Between:
Van Kshetradhikari Sangh
through its President ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief
Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand / respondents
The Court made the following:
ORDER: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The respondent No. 2 has filed the counter-
affidavit.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(HoFF), Uttarakhand, Shri Vinod Kumar, is present
before us today. He submits that, as on date, the
territorial ranges are only under the Forest Range
Officers, and all Deputy Range Officers have been
shunted out, except two namely, Sanjay Kumar Pandey
and Mahendra Giri, who are discharging the
responsibilities as the Forest Range Officers in Corbett
Tiger Reserve, Bijrani Range; and Rajaji Tiger Reserve,
Dholkhand Range, respectively. So far as Sanjay Kumar
Pandey is concerned, the reason for his posting as the
Forest Range Officer is stated to be -that he had filed a
writ petition before this Court, and this Court "was
pleased to direct the respondents to consider the claim
of the petitioner to be given out of turn promotion due to
the exemplary work done by him in the past."
3. So are as Mahendra Giri is concerned, the
reasoning given by the respondents in their counter-
affidavit is as follows:
"Temporary charge in view of the Tiger
Translocation and monitoring Project being undertaken
in the area. He has received awards for his work on
Tiger translocation."
4. Mr. Negi points out that there is no direction
issued by this Court to consider claim of Sanjay Kumar
Pandey for grant of out of turn promotion due to the
exemplary work claimed to have been done by him in
the past. Mr. Negi has filed a copy of the order dated
15.12.2022, passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 693 of
2022, preferred by Sanjay Pandey. It shows that he had
preferred the petition, inter alia, to seek a direction to
the respondents to consider his case for promotion on
the post of Forest Range Officer, and the said petition
was disposed of by granting him liberty to file his claim
before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, since he
is a public officer, and, simultaneously, a direction was
issued to the respondent to consider, and dispose of his
representation, within four weeks. We find that the
counter-affidavit proceeds on an incorrect factual basis,
and the justification offered by respondent No. 2 is
specious.
5. In our view, there is no justification for a
Deputy Forest Range Officer being given the charge of a
territorial range, in the light of the Government Order
dated 05.09.2013, and the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court dated 10.03.2017, in Writ Petition
(S/B) No. 145 of 2016, against which a Special Leave
Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on
20.06.2017.
6. Mr. Negi has also pointed out that the
respondents have, in the meantime, carried out the
promotional exercise, and issued the promotion orders
dated 16.03.2023, in respect of 16 Deputy Forest Range
Officers. The said document has been filed on record
with the counter-affidavit. It shows that the officers
mentioned at Sl. Nos. 11 to 16, would stand promoted
from 01.06.2023, and thereafter. Yet the said Deputy
Forest Range Officers continue to hold the charge of
Forest Ranger Officers of territorial ranges. In our view,
since they are continuing to hold the post of Deputy
Forest Range Officers, their promotion from a future
date cannot be a justification to continue them in charge
of Forest Range Officers of the territorial ranges. The
same is in clear violation of the judgment of this Court,
apart from being in violation of the Government Order of
2013, referred to above.
7. We, therefore, direct respondent No. 2 to
immediately make amends, and direct that all Deputy
Forest Range Officers - holding the charge of Forest
Range Officers of territorial ranges, shall forthwith stand
relieved of their charge as Forest Range Officers.
Respondent No. 2 shall pass the consequential orders
within two working days.
8. It is also pointed out by Mr. Negi that the
respondents have placed before this Court a tabulated
summary of Range Officers and territorial postings. The
said tabulation reads as follows:
TABLE : Summary of Range Officers and Territorial Postings
Total number of sanctioned posts of Range Officers 308
Total number of Range Officers in place as on 17.03.2022 245
No. of Range Officers unsuitable for territorial post due to 6
disciplinary reasons
No.of Range Officers unsuitable for territorial post due to old age 4
No. of Range Officers unsuitable for territorial post due to health 9
reasons
No. of Range Officers unsuitable for territorial post due to family 2
reasons
No. or Range Officers involved in training of field staff 2
No. of Range Officers involved in preparation of working plans 3
No. of Range Officers posted to important functional posts/ 26
non-territorial ranges handling important projects like CAT plan,
CAMPA, GIM and externally aided projects like JICA
No. of Range Officers available for territorial postings 161
Total number of territorial ranges and units with territorial areas 183
Current Deficiency of Range Officers for territorial ranges 22
9. Mr. Negi points out that, firstly, the said
tabulation contains particulars of not only territorial
postings, but also non-territorial postings. From the
tabulation it is seen that, as on 17.03.2023 (wrongly
typed as 17.03.2022), 245 Range Officers are in place.
The particulars of Range Officers, who are in-charge of
SDOs; on deputation; under the disciplinary
proceedings; unsuitable for territorial post due to old
age; unsuitable for territorial post due to health reasons;
unsuitable for territorial post due to family reasons;
involved in training of field staff, and; involved in
preparation of working plans have been provided, which
add up to 58 in number. Therefore, even if, these 58
Range Officers are excluded from the figure of 245 (who
are in place), the balance number of Range Officers, who
are available for territorial postings, comes to 187.
Contrary to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition
(S/B) No. 145 of 2016, 26 Range Officers, rather then
being given the territorial postings, have been given
non-territorial postings, which are described as
"important functional posts/non-territorial ranges
handling important projects like CAT plan, CAMPA, GIM
and externally aided projects like JICA", thereby
artificially reducing the number of Range Officers
available for territorial postings to 151. The number of
territorial ranges and units with territorial areas in the
State are 183. In this manner, the respondents have
shown a deficiency of Range Officers for territorial
ranges to the extent of 183 - 161 = 22.
10. Mr. Negi has submitted, and in our view,
rightly so, that there can be no justification in posting
Range Officers on non-territorial postings, and the said
postings could be offered to the Deputy Forest Range
Officers, strictly according to the seniority. This
direction was also issued by this Court in Writ Petition
(S/B) No. 145 of 2016.
11. We direct the respondents to grant options to
all the 26 Forest Range Officers, who are presently
posted in non-territorial postings to give their options -
whether they wish to continue in their current postings,
or, whether, they wish to be posted in territorial
postings. The options should be called within one week,
granting two weeks time to them to exercise their
options. Those of the officers, who opt to take up
territorial postings, shall be granted territorial postings,
wherever the positions become available due to
divestment of the charge of Forest Range Officers
presently held by Deputy Forest Range Officers.
12. We direct the respondent No. 2 to file a further
affidavit, reporting compliance of our directions issued
today. He shall also deal with the averments made by
the petitioner in the rejoinder. We direct respondent No.
2 to strictly comply with the directions issued by this
Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 145 of 2016, to ensure
disciplinary proceedings against Forest Officers /
officials, who have defied the order dated 05.09.2013,
as well as the judgment dated 10.03.2017. Compliance
of this direction should also be reported in the affidavit
to be filed by respondent No. 2, which should be filed
within four weeks.
13. Respondent No. 2 shall remain present in
Court on the next date.
14. The rejoinder affidavit tendered in Court is
taken on record.
15. List the matter on 26.04.2023.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 23rd MARCH, 2023
Negi
