T. Sivasankaran vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

A. Arumughaswamy, J.—Seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to place the petitioners name in the seniority list above the fifth

respondent from 1997 and to disburse all service benefits since 1997 till date, the petitioner has come up with this petition. The facts leading to this

case are as follows:-

The petitioner joined in service in January 1984 as Forest Guard and had put in 24 years of service in all. The petitioner was working as Forester

under the respondent Department from the year 2000. According to the petitioner, though he is fully eligible for promotion as Forester in the year

1997 itself, as per the panel prepared by the fourth respondent on 22.09.1997 his name was listed as Serial No. 36, the petitioner was not given

promotion. However, without assigning any reason, the petitioners immediate juniors viz., who are put in Serial Nos. 37 to 47 were promoted.

Earlier, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 10.11.1989 for the alleged misconduct by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kallakurichi

Division in R.C. No. 9297/89/A2 dated 09.11.1989. Subsequently, the said charge was dropped and the period of suspension was directed to be

treated as duty period by and an order of the second respondent in S.O. No. A2/6013/92 dated 13.07.1992. According to the petitioner, as on

the date of preparation of alleged panel list, the petitioner was fully eligible for promotion. But, without promoting the petitioner, his immediate

junior namely the fifth respondent was promoted as Forester. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 07.10.1997 to the

respondents 2 to 4 to promote him to the post of Forester. Since, the said representation was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner

constrained to file an Original Application in O.A. No. 9218 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. The Tribunal by

order dated 21.11.1997 directed the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner within 3 months.

In compliance of the said direction issued by the Tribunal, the second respondent passed an order on 22.08.1998 in P.M.AA1/74277/97

rejecting the representation of the petitioner. As against the same, the petitioner went on appeal to the first respondent. The said appeal is pending.

On 25.02.2005, the petitioner again submitted a representation to the second respondent and the same was also rejected by the second

respondent on 26.03.2006 stating that he was not suitable for promotion since, he abetted the smuggling of sandalwood. According to the

petitioner, in respect of the said offence already a charge was framed and the same was also dropped by the respondents themselves 13.07.1992.

In the mean time, the petitioner was promoted as Forester by the respondents by proceeding in P.1/18012/99 dated 11.01.2000. Thereafter,

the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 15160/2006 before this Court seeking to consider his representation. This Court by order dated

13.06.2007, directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks. According to the

petitioner, so far no order has been passed by the respondents on the representation of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court

with this writ petition.

The fourth respondent has filed a detailed counter on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents themselves have

admitted as follows:-

... The list of Forest Guards so prepared was placed before the Selection Committee for Selection or otherwise. It is true that no charge sheet was

pending against the petitioner on the date of consideration. While screening the past services of the petitioner, by the Selection Committee, it was

decided by the committee unanimously that the petitioner was not fit for promotion since his caliber at that juncture was not upto the mark. Hence

the petitioner was not selected and his candidature was rejected.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) appearing for the respondents and I

have also perused the records carefully.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no charge memorandum pending as on the date of preparing of panel for

promotion to the post of Forester. Further, the charges framed against the petitioner was subsequently, dropped by the respondents themselves.

Even in the counter itself, the respondents have admitted that no charge sheet was pending against the petitioner on the date of consideration and

while screening the past services of the petitioner, by the Selection Committee, it was decided by the committee unanimously that the petitioner

was not fit for promotion since his caliber at that juncture was not upto the mark. According to the learned counsel, without assigning any reason,

the opportunity of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Forester was denied. Hence, according to him, the petitioner was fully eligible for

promotion to the post of Forester in the year 1997 itself and hence, his promotion to the post of Forester may be fixed from the year 1997.

Though, it has been admitted in the counter that no charge sheet was pending against the petitioner as on the date of consideration, but while

screening the past services of the petitioner, by the Selection Committee, it was decided by the committee unanimously that the petitioner was not

fit for promotion since his caliber at that juncture was not upto the mark. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the

petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought for in this writ petition.

I have considered the above submissions.

There is no dispute that the charges framed against the petitioner were dropped by the respondents themselves and as on the date of preparing

of panel for promotion to the post of Forester, the petitioner is eligible to be promoted and his name was find place in Serial No. 36 in the panel.

Despite the same, without assigning any valid reason, the respondents have denied promotion to the petitioner which would amount to violation of

principles of natural justice. In view of all the above, I am inclined to issue a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 as sought for by the petitioner. In

the result, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to place the petitioners name in the seniority list above the 5th

respondent from 1997 and to disburse all service benefits from the date of promotion of the petitioners immediate junior namely the fifth

respondent herein for the post of Forester till date. In any event, the said exercise shall be completed by the respondents 1 to 4 within a period of

eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.