A.S. Sampathkumar vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

K. Chandru, J.—Heard the arguments of Mr. M. Ravi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. Thirugnanam, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the first respondent, Mr. K. Sridhar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the second respondent and Mr. K. Rajasekar, learned Government Advocate representing the third respondent and have perused the records.

The petitioner is a member of Indian Forest Service and he filed O.A. No. 406 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the Notification dated 29.10.1999 showing the year of allotment to various persons. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioner by its order dated 29.4.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Review Application being Rev. A. No. 12 of 2002 and the same was also rejected by an order dated 11.7.2002. It is against these two orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

The case of the petitioner was that he was appointed as a Forest Ranger in the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service and he joined the service on 05.9.1966. Subsequently, he was promoted as an Assistant Conservator of Forests on 01.3.1982 and as Deputy Conservator of Forests on 31.01.1996. Since he had completed eight years of service in a substantive capacity in the State Forest Service, he became qualified to the selection and appointment to Indian Forest Service in terms of Rule 8 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. According to the petitioner, a Selection Committee was held on 26.3.1997 and he was selected for promotion to Indian Forest Service and his name was included in the select list. The said list was also approved by the Union Public Service Commission and accordingly, he was asked to send certain details because of his name being found in the select list. He was transferred from Non-Cadre post to cadre post in the Forest Department, i.e., as Deputy Conservator of Forests, by G.O. Rt. No. 878 Environment and Forest Department dated 29.8.1997 and he joined duty on 15.9.1997. After he was included in the All India Service, he was allotted to the Tamil Nadu cadre and by G.O. Ms. No. 46 Environment and Forest Department dated 05.3.1998, a Notification was communicated to him. Subsequently, by a communication dated 29.10.1999, he was informed that his year of allotment to IFS was 1993 and his name was placed below the name of the fifth respondent. After making a representation that he should be allotted to the year of 1992 and seniority should be fixed and having not been successful, he had filed the Original Application as noted already.

The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and after perusing the minutes of the Selection Committee, came to the conclusion that the name of one State Forest Officer was placed above the applicant and that officer''s name was provisionally included subject to clearance of disciplinary proceedings and grant of Integrity Certificate from the State Government and once that person is appointed, then the proviso to Rule 3(3)(2) of the Seniority Rules of 1977 will come into play and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be assigned an year of allotment earlier to that of an officer above him in the select list. The Tribunal also held that the assignment of seniority is governed by IFS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1997 and it came into effect on 01.01.1998 and the petitioner''s name has been allotted correctly. The Tribunal found that the petitioner''s name was included in the select list on the basis of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 26.3.1997 and it was approved by the Union Public Service Commission in July 1997. The Tribunal also held that in terms of proviso to Regulation 9 of the IFS (Appointment and Promotion) Regulation, 1966, if any officer is included in the select list provisionally, one post will have to be kept vacant for such provisionally included officer. It was also held that the IFS Seniority Rules 1997 came into force on 01.01.1998 and on that date, the 1968 Rules stood repealed and that seniority of officers appointed after 01.01.1998 can be determined only in accordance with the Seniority Rules, 1997 and since the petitioner was appointed to IFS only on 04.02.1998, by which date the amended rule was in force and the petitioner cannot have any grievance on the year of allotment, viz., 1993.

The decision relied on by the petitioner in this regard has no relevance to the issue on hand. The Tribunal has correctly construed the scope of the amended rule. Even at the time of filing of the Original Application in the year 2001, the petitioner was 56 years old. By now, he would have retired from service. We do not think that the order of the Tribunal calls for any interference.

In view of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.