Promotional decisions in public service must prioritize merit, with courts reluctant to interfere in expert committees' selections unless substantial biases or illegality are evident.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):

In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:–

I. Issue an order or direction quashing the order dated 30.11.2025 (Annexure No. A6) as promulgated by Respondent No. 02, vide which Respondent No. 04 has been appointed and promoted to the post of PCCF/Head of Forest Force, as being contrary to the guidelines dated 16.04.2009 as specified by Respondent No. 01 (Annexure No. A5) with regard to the selection to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), and also the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka as passed in Petition No. 42749/2018 (State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Sri B.J. Hosmath) (Annexure No. A7), squarely applicable to the present case;

II. Issue an order or direction commanding the Respondents to consider the candidature of the Applicant for the post of Head of Forest Force as per the guidelines promulgated by Respondent No. 01 dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure No. A5);

III. Issue an order or direction commanding the Respondents to make the pay scale of Level 17 amenable to the Applicant, in line with the consistent position of law as laid down by various courts, including Petition No. 42749/2018 (State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Sri B.J. Hosmath) (Annexure No. A7), as well as Ranjana Gupta v. State of Assam , Original Application No. 36/2024 (Annexure No. A11);

IV. To give cost of the petition to the Applicant; V. Pass any other order that this Learned Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

2.1. The applicant is a senior Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer of the Uttarakhand cadre with an unblemished and exemplary service record. Upon the retirement of the outgoing Head of Forest Force (HoFF), the applicant had become the senior-most eligible IFS officer in the State and was within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF).

2.2 Vide order dated 30.11.2025, Respondent No. 04, who is junior to the applicant, was appointed and promoted to the post of PCCF/Head of Forest Force, in violation of the binding guidelines dated 16.04.2009 issued by the Government of India governing selection to the said post. Learned counsel argued that the said guidelines mandate a fair, reasoned and objective selection process and do not prescribe availability of residual tenure as a disqualifying criterion.

2.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had been in the zone of consideration for the post of HoFF on four earlier occasions and that, as a long-standing and consistent convention in the State of Uttarakhand for more than two decades, the senior- most IFS officer had always been appointed as Head of Forest Force, irrespective of the length of residual service. Several past appointments were cited to demonstrate that limited tenure had never been treated as a determinative factor either for appointment as HoFF or for grant of the Apex Scale.

2.4. It was further contended that no adverse material existed against the applicant. His Annual Confidential Reports consistently reflected outstanding performance, integrity and suitability for the highest post in the Forest Department. No show cause notice, adverse remark or charge-sheet had ever been issued to the applicant.

2.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant’s non-appointment was solely on the alleged ground of his limited remaining tenure, which, according to settled law and judicial precedents including the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Sri B.J. Hosmath (W.P. No. 42749/2018) and the decision of Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal