IMPORTANT POINT
The fact that an officer was eligible and qualified for promotion to the Indian Forest Service only entitles him to be considered for selection under the IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, but does not give him any preference over others who have earned better grading than him.

Headnote:(i) SERVICE LAW—Promotion—Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1966—Regulation 5(3), 5(4)—Non inclusion of name of respondent in the select list for promotion to the Indian Forest Service—Validity challenged—Selection Committee having acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Promotion Regulations, which are statutory in nature—IFS Promotion Regulations were amended vide notification dated 13-12-1997 effective from 1-1-1998 —Definition of the word ‘year’ underwent a change after the amendment of the Regulations—There was a transition period between April 1997 to December 1997, i.e. between the ceasing of the effect of the old Regulations and the coming into effect of the amended Regulations—For this, specific orders dated 27-2-1998 and 14-9-1998 were issued by the Government of India appointing two officers to safeguard interests of those officers who would otherwise have been adversely affected because of the said transition—Two of the six vacancies indicated by State Government in their letter dated 6-7-1998 were utilized before the meeting of the Selection Committee on 16-9-1998—Tribunal was not justified in holding that proposal to select six officers had been reduced to four in an arbitrary manner—Respondent was duty considered by the Selection Committee but he was not included in the select list as officers having better grading were available and also due to the statutory limit on the size of the select list.
       Held : The appellant conducted the selections strictly in accordance with the statutory regulations and orders issued by the Government of India, and hence there was neither any infirmity nor arbitrariness involved in the selection, nor was the procedure adopted by the Selection Authority dubious and questionable as held by the High Court.(Para 11)
       As regards the question whether there were six vacancies or four, the High Court and the Tribunal did not take into account the fact that the IFS Promotion Regulations and IFS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations were amended by the notification dated 31.12.1997 which came into effect from 1.1.1998.(Para 12)
       The Select List prepared in 1997 was for the year 1996-97 and it was in force till the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 16.9.1998. S/Sh. B. Venkataraman and M. Samuel Moses were the waitlisted officers in the said Select List. These two officers were appointed to the IFS by the Government of India vide notification dated 10.9.1998 in pursuance to the aforesaid letter dated 27.2.1998. Thus two of the six vacancies indicated by the State Government in their letter dated 6.7.1998 were utilized before the meeting of the Selection Committee on 16.9.1998.(Para 13)
       The Tribunal, while reaching to the conclusion that the proposal to select six officers had been reduced to four in an arbitrary manner without assigning any reason, placed reliance on the State Government’s notes for the Selection Committee indicating that there were six vacancies to be filled up. The State Government’s letter dated 2.9.1998 indicating that two of the said six vacancies are to be filled up in terms of Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests letter dated 27.2.1998 and only four vacancies would remain vacant thereafter for the year 1998 was not at all taken into account by the Tribunal. This has been confirmed by the Government of India in paras 5 to 8 of the reply filed by them in the writ petition filed before the High Court. As per the amendment dated 31.12.1997 to the IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, the size of the select list is equal to the number of vacancies available. In the instant case, the Selection Committee was informed that there were four vacancies in the promotion quota of Tamil Nadu cadre for the select list of 1998. Therefore, the committee took into account four vacancies and prepared a select list of four officers.(Para 14)
       The Selection Committee acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Promotion Regulations, which are statutory in nature. The courts below erred in holding that merely because the respondent no.1 was qualified and there was no case pending against him, his name should have been included in the select list. The fact that he was eligible and qualified only entitles him to be considered for selection under the Promotion Regulations, but does not give him any preference over others who have earned better grading than him. Respondent no.1 was duly considered by the Selection Committee at Sl.No. 11 and was addressed as ‘Good’. However, he was not included in the select list as officers having better grading were available and also due to the statutory limit on the size of the select list.(Para 21)
       (ii) SERVICE LAW—Promotions—Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966—Inclusion of tainted officers in the select list—An officer who is included in the zone of consideration has to be considered by the Selection Committee even if disciplinary proceedings are pending against him—Name of such an officer is included provisionally in the select list, if he is otherwise found suitable for inclusion—Courts below were not justified in holding that names of such officers should not be considered at all.(Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 23.12.2005 in Writ Petition No.30223 of 2002.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The first respondent was recruited as Forest Ranger and was promoted as Assistant Conservator of forest on 12.7.1982 and he was further promoted as Deputy Conservator of Forest on 20.9.1996. He was eligible for inclusion in the select list for promotion to the Indian Forest Service. Since his name was not included in the select list, he made a representation and that representation was rejected. Against this rejection the first respondent filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed the said application.

4. The contentions of the first respondent before the said Tribunal were:

(a)Even though he was fully qualified and eligible for inclusion of his name in the select list for the year 1998, his name was not considered and included in the said year.

(b)Though there were six vacancies, only two officers were selected.

(c)As far as the selection of one Mr. K.S. Krishnan is concerned, he had already crossed the age limit of 54 years, yet his name was included in the select list for the year 1998 and no valid reasons have been assigned by the authority concerned for the same.

(d)The selection committee selected two officers of the State Cadre against whom vigilance enquiry were already pending.

5. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the contentions of both the sides, allowed the O.A. in favour of the first respondent, and passed the following order in favour of the first respondent:

“(a)The impugned order dated 24.1.2000 is quashed.

(b)The official respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant by constituting a review DPC for inclusion in the select list and appointment of IFS. This exercise shall be completed within three months of receipt of a copy of this order by the official respondents.”

6. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 17.4.2002, the appellant Union Public Service Commission filed an appeal before the High Court. It was contended by the appellant before the High Court that there were only four vacancies available for consideration by the Selection Committee and not six. Hence it was contended that the Selection Committee which met on 16.9.1998 included only four officers in the select list for 1998 as the available vacancies for Tamil Nadu at that time were only four.

7. As far as inclusion of Shri K.S. Krishnan for the post of IFS officer for the year 1998 was concerned, even though the said officer had completed 54 years on 3.5.1997, his case was considered by the selection committee as per the second proviso to Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 5 of the IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966.

8. With regard to the inclusion of 2 officers in the select list, who were facing Vigilance Enquiry, the names of such officers were included in terms of the proviso to Sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 5 of Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966.

9. The High court, however, agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

10. In our opinion both the High Court and the Tribunal overlooked the fact that the selection of State Forest Services officers for promotion to the IFS are governed by the IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, which are statutory in nature. They did not also take into account the fact that the IFS Promotion Regulations were amended vide notification dated 31.12.1997 effective from 1.1.1998 bringing about certain changes. There was a transition period between April 1997 to December i.e. between the ceasing of the effect of the old Regulations and taking effect of the new Regulations for which specific orders dated 27.2.1998 and 14.9.1998 were issued by the Government of India to safeguard the interest of those officers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 185

Cases Referred (1)