IMPORTANT POINT
Promissory estoppel does not apply to present case.

Judgment

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Civil Appeal Nos. 6101, 6102, 6103 and 6104 of 2009 are filed by the State against the common judgment dated 15.06.2007 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 586 of 1999, 66, 118 and 170 of 2000 wherein the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the State employees working in the Forest Department by setting aside the judgment/order dated 15.12.1999 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in O.A. Nos. 35 of 1989, 595, 609 and 620 of 1990.

2. So far as Civil Appeal Nos. 6097-6100 of 2009 are concerned, these appeals are filed by one set of employees after obtaining leave of this Court because they were not parties before the High Court or before the Tribunal. According to them, consequent upon the declaration given by the High Court in favour of the respondents in their absence, they felt aggrieved and hence filed these appeals.

3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, which lie in a narrow compass, it is necessary to state the relevant facts infra.

4. The respondents herein are the State employees working in the Forest Department in Himachal Pradesh. They were appointed during 1989-1990 and accordingly posted as "Range Officers" in the Forest Department. Their service conditions are governed by the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service (Class-II) (in short “the Rules”).

5. The respondents, however, claimed that they having qualified the State Forest Service Course (Diploma Course) from different colleges were eligible to be posted as ACF (Assistant Conservator of Forest) and accordingly were eligible for being treated as "direct recruits" in the H.P. Forest Services Class II.

6. The respondents claimed the aforementioned reliefs essentially on the basis of one letter dated 28.07.1983 sent by the Director of Forest Education, Forest Research Institute & College to the Secretary, Forest Department, States/U.Ts. According to the respondents, the letter was in the nature of the promise given to them by the State and since the State declined to grant the reliefs, they filed O.As before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) against the State and sought for the following reliefs:

(i) That the respondents may be directed to appoint petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as HPFS-II from the date they completed the SFS Training Course from SFS College Dehradum, i.e. April 1, 1986, the day following the convocation.

(ii) That the respondents may be directed to appoint petitioner No.3 as H.P.F.S.-II from the date of his joining the SFS Training Course at SFS College Burnihat, i.e., 1.11.1986.

(iii) That the petitioners may be declared to have been duly selected for SFS Diploma against direct quota under the existing R & P Rules and the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioners from the due dates as has been done in the cases of their contemporary direct recruits.

(iv) That the petitioners may be held entitled to all consequential benefits including fixation of seniority and back wages; and

(v) That in the alternative if it is construed that there are some impediments for considering the petitioners for appointments to HPFS-II from due dates, in that event, the respondents may be directed to take necessary steps for doing the needful and if the proposed action/rules create certain difficulties in the cases of petitioners, the same may be deemed to have been relaxed in view of peculiar facts of this case.”

7. The State contested the respondents’ claim and contended that no promise was ever given to the respondents and nor any promise was discernible from the letter dated 28.07.1983 relied on by the respondents so as to entitle them to claim the aforementioned reliefs. It was also contended that since the Rules do not make any provision on the issue in question and hence it is not possible to consider grant of such relief to the respondents. Lastly, it wa