Delay in conducting mandatory cadre reviews jeopardizes the promotion eligibility of employees, infringing upon their fundamental right to be considered for promotion under Article 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9^th October 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai (“Tribunal” for short) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 777 of 2011. By the said order, the Tribunal directed the Union of India as well as the State Government to reconsider the induction of respondent no.1 to the Indian Forest Service (“IFS” for short). These O.A.’s were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order. Hence, we dispose these petitions by a common judgment and order. The facts are almost identical. Reference to facts in Writ Petition No. 10958 of 2015 should suffice.

2. Challenging the Tribunal’s order, it is the petitioner – State of Maharashtra’s case that the respondent no.1 has no vested right of induction into the IFS only on account of delay in cadre review which was due in the year 2007. Learned AGP pressed into service that Regulation 5(3) of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1996 (“Regulations” for short) is mandatory in nature and the respondent no.1 having crossed the prescribed age bar, was rightly not considered for induction in IFS in the year 2009.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner – State Government/competent authority is responsible for the Administration of Maharashtra State Forest Service and for processing cadre review proposals relating to the induction of State Forest Service Officers into IFS.

4. The respondent no.1 belongs to 1983-84 batch of Maharashtra Public Service Commission (“MPSC” for short) selectees. He joined service as Assistant Conservator of Forest after completing prescribed training. He was subsequently promoted as Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) w.e.f. 20^th January 1997. Under the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966 (“Cadre Rules” for short), the officers of the State Forest Service are eligible to be inducted in IFS against available vacancies in the Maharashtra Cadre. The strength of the cadre is periodically reviewed under Rule 4(2), requiring re-examination every 5 years. The cadre reviews in respect of the Maharashtra IFS cadre were carried out in 1997, 2002 and thereafter due in 2007. The process of cadre review for 2007 was initiated in June 2006. Necessary proposals were submitted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. The same were processed through concerned State department. The final proposal was forwarded to the Government of India on 7^th September 2009. Following scrutiny and approval, the notification determining cadre strength was issued by the Central Government on 14^th May 2010.

5. The respondent no.1 was considered for induction into IFS against the vacancies of 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008 but was not selected. He became eligible for consideration against one vacancy in 2009. However, by that time, he had crossed the maximum permissible age of 54 years under Regulation 5(3) of the IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1996 and was, therefore, rendered ineligible. The respondent no.1 approached the Tribunal in 2011 claiming relief based on the mandatory nature of cadre review time lines under Rule 4(2), relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. V. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 290 and S. Ramanathan V. Union of India & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 118 in support of his case.

6. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 9^th October 2014 directed the Union and State Government to reconsider the case of respondent no.1