Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Marli Vankung
Lalrammawii Sailo – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
MARLI VANKUN, J.
Heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
2. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved for not having been given retrospective promotion w.e.f. 2010 to the petitioners when the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were promoted to Indian Forest Service of AGMUT Cadre vide notification dated 27.06.2019 and placed in selection list of the year 2017, and the petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 were also promoted to Indian Forest Service of AGMUT Cadre vide notification dated 06.10.2020 and placed in the selection list of 2018.
3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that they were appointed to the Mizoram Forest Service during the year between 1984 and 1986, and thereafter, they were promoted to senior grade during the year between 2009 and 2015 rd respectively. Under the 3 proviso to Rule/Regulation 5(2) of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, it was provided that a member of the State Forest Service
Judicial review under Article 226 is discretionary and may be exercised despite an alternative remedy, but in this case, the existence of such remedy led to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Forest Range Officers are not part of the State Forest Service under the Indian Forest Service Recruitment Rules due to the absence of required Central Government approval for promotion eligibility.
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 Constitu....
Officers are entitled to Senior Time Scale upon completing four years of service, irrespective of passing departmental exams; their substantive rights are protected.
Administrative tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, and bypassing them for adjudication in High Court is generally not permitted unless in exceptional circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties cannot directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of service matters covered by the Act of 1985....
Promotion not a right; contingent on seniority, eligibility, vacancies; retrospective promotions exceptional without proven illegality.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
