SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.K. Sema & V.S. Sirpurkar
Gopal Singh-PETITIONER
VERSUS
State Cadre Forest Officers Association & Ors-RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 1041-1044 of 2004
DECIDED ON : 15/05/2007
AMM - Forest Department Dispute - Andaman Forest Department (Class I & Class II Gazetted Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1963, Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, Andaman & Nicobar Forest Service Rules, 1991 - The court discussed the equivalence of the posts of AMM and ACF, the connection of the AMM post with forestry, and the impact of the 1991 Rules on the promotion avenues for the AMM. The court also examined the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal and found it impermissible to write a second order in the name of reviewing its own judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employee of the Forest Department of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, challenged a judgment passed by the High Court in two writ petitions, which set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the writ petitions. The appellant claimed that he deserved to be promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests based on the Andaman Forest Department (Class I & Class II Gazetted Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1963 and the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. The State contended that the appellant was in the Technical Channel and had no claim to the post on the forestry side.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal rejected the Original Application, finding that the appellant could not be said to be in the State Forest Service within the meaning of IFS (Recruitment Rules), 1966 and that the said post could not be connected with forestry. The Tribunal also noted that there was no existing right conferred by the 1963 Rules as amended in 1973 on the appellant which is taken away by the new Rules. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
Issues: The issues included the equivalence of the posts of AMM and ACF, the connection of the AMM post with forestry, and the impact of the 1991 Rules on the promotion avenues for the AMM. The court also examined the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the post of AMM was not equivalent to the post of ACF and was not connected with forestry. The court also found the Tribunal's review jurisdiction impermissible.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
1.This judgment shall dispose of four Civil Appeals, they being Civil Appeal Nos.1041-1044 of 2004, all of which have been filed by the present appellant.
2.The appellant who is an employee of the Forest Department of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands comes before us in the above appeals challenging a common judgment passed by the High Court in two writ petitions whereby the judgment in favour of the writ petitioner passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short) was upset allowing the writ petitions. The appellant has also challenged the further orders passed by the High Court dismissing the Review Petitions filed by the appellant. The High Court vide its judgment set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed two writ petitions, one filed by the State Cadre Forest Officers Association and another by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration. They were W.P. C.T.No.209 of 1999 and W.P.C.T.No.246 of 1999. The judgment of the Tribunal was itself passed in review whereby the Review Petition filed by the appellant was allowed and the earlier judgment passed by the Tribunal was upset and the Original Application filed by the appellant was allowed. The following facts would be necessary to understand the controversy involved.
3.The appellant, at the relevant time when he approached the Tribunal, was holding the post of Assistant Mill Manager (hereinafter referred to as "AMM" for short) in the Forest Department of Andaman. The Service Profile of the appellant is as under:
"He started his service as a Casual Labour on 12.7.1976. He was appointed as Draftsman on adhoc basis on 20.7.1976 and thereafter as Assistant Constructional Engineer w.e.f. 26.12.1980 and was posted in Saw Mill Division, Chatham where he continued till March, 1984 in that capacity. In March, on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee for Group B post, he was promoted as Assistant Mill Manager, Saw Mill Division vide notification dated 16.3.1984. His claim is that thereafter he was posted to supervise the construction work at Rangat and Rangat Bay. He further claimed that he was assigned the duty of supervision and inspection of the Saw Mill at Betapur. He also claimed that he was also directed to exercise the powers and authority of Assistant Conservator of Forest though at intervals. Thus he continued to be posted at Rangat, Middle Andamans as Assistant Mill Manager from July, 1984 to June, 1992 during which period he had also been assigned the duties of Assistant Conservator of Forest from time to time. He, therefore, claims that he enjoyed the same power and authority of Assistant Conservator of Forest and for this he relied on an order dated 9.12.1993."
When the petitioner was appointed initially, he was part of the Forest Department of Andaman & Nicobar Islands governed by Andaman Forest Department (Class I & Class II Gazetted Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1963 (hereafter referred to as "the 1963 Rules") which were amended on 3.8.1973. Both these Rules provide for the recruitment and promotion to the posts of Chief Conservator of Forests, Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Assistant Mill Manager, Senior Assistant Engineer and others. The claim of the appellant, as it originally stood, was that in terms of the aforementioned Rules, he deserved to be promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as "DCF" for short). The basis of this claim was that his post of AMM was equivalent in Grade-II to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the "ACF" for short) which was a feeder post for the promotion to the post of DCF. His further case was that as per the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 [hereafter referred to as the "IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966] dated 17.11.1965 he was entitled to be pro
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.