Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member, Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
N. Nageswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA/1048/2018|OA/156/2022|OA/66/2023
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - All India Services - Seniority & Promotion
Act Referred
All India Services Act, 1951
All India Services Act, 1954
Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1997: R.3(3)(ii), R.4
Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Amendment Rules, 2012: R.3(ii)(a), R.3(ii)(b), R.3(ii)(c)
Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966: R.8, R.9
Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966: R.3, R.5
All India Service (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters), Rules, 1960: R.3(ii)
Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules: R.33(a), R.12
Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules
Headnote
(B) Service Law - Seniority and Promotion - Cannot claim weightage/seniority from vacancy date if not actually serving; formal appointment date governs - Erroneous benefits (pre-poned seniority) withdrawn; no right to perpetuate illegality - Cadre controlling authority must scrutinize proposals, fix responsibility for rule misapplication. (Paras 56-62)
Facts of the case:
State Forest Service officers promoted to IFS against 2010-2012 select lists; Central Government allotted years based on State proposals using vacancy dates (1988-1990) instead of actual appointments (1999); direct recruit IFS officers challenged; promotees sought implementation despite State seeking revision.
Findings of Court:
Vacancy-date reckoning erroneous; actual service dates apply; revise allotments accordingly; withdraw interim benefits granted under status quo.
Issues: (a) Entitlement to year allotment from vacancy occurrence? (b) Weightage for pre-entry service? (c) Weightage pre-12 years service? (d) Legality of vacancy-based weightage despite ineligibility?
Ratio Decidendi: Seniority/year of allotment determined by actual continuous service from appointment date, not vacancy; retrospective effect impermissible if not borne in cadre; States to furnish correct data; Supreme Court rulings (e.g., direct recruits/promotees seniority from appointment, not vacancy) binding.
Result: OA 1048/2018 dismissed; OAs 156/2022 & 66/2023 allowed - Direct States to forward revised proposals within 4 weeks; Central Government to approve within 8 weeks; revise seniorities.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Siva, Mr. G.S. Prasen, Mr. G.S. Prasen
For the Respondents: Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG, Mr. GVL Murthy, GP for AP, Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG, Mr GVL Murthy, GP for AP, Mrs. S. Anuradha, AGP for TG, Mr.J. Sudheer, Mrs. B. Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC, Mr GVL Murthy, GP for AP, Mrs. S. Anuradha, AGP for TG, Mr.J. Sudheer, Mr. P.V. Ramana
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties and reliefs sought defined (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. year of allotment determination disputed (Para 3) |
(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)
OA/1048/2018 By this OA, the applicants sought the following relief:
“...Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interests of justice be pleased to i. Call for all the relevant and connected records relating to G.O. RT. No. 2214 General Administration (SC.C) Department, dated 12.10.2018 issued by the 3rd Respondent and quash or set aside the same holding it as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, in violation of principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
ii. Consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to act as per the orders of the 1st Respondent issued in F.No.17013/14/2013-IFS-II, dated 27.9.2018 read with GO Rt.No.2125 General Administration SC.C Department dated.01.10.2018 and release all the consequential benefits that flow there from like promotions based on the Year of Allotment so determined and consequential monetary benefits from the dates on which they become due and payable;
iii. Also direct the 1st Respondent not to entertain the revision of year of allotment order dated 27.09.2018 in violation of the Statutory Rules and act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules 1997;”
2. Brief facts in nutshell are as under:
(i) The applicants were directly recruited as Assist. Conservators of Forests in the State Forest Services and they have discharged their duties to the best satisfaction of all the concerned authorities. The applicants, by virtue of sheer hard work and placement in the seniority, earned promotion as Dy. Conservator of Forests (State Cadre). The applicants further contended that as per the provisions of Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, officers of State Forest with 8 years of service would be eligible for being appointed to the Indian Forest Service (for short “IFS”). The IFS Recruitment Rules, made in exercise of power vested by the provisions of the All India Services Act, 1954, provide for percentage of posts in the IFS to be filled up by the method of promotion from the State Forest Service. Since all the applicants have completed their requisite service and were within the zone of consideration, they would become entitled to be considered and eventually appointed to the IFS as per the regulations. According to the applicants, the vacancies falling to the quota of State Forest Service officers were available and for various reasons, the selection process could not be initiated and thus, the vacancies for 2010, 2011 and 2012, being unfilled, were available for being filled up by promotion from the State Forest Service Officers.
(ii) The applicants submit that their seniority in the State Forest Service was finalized by the 4th respondent, vide GO Ms. No. 39, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (FOR, SEC.V), dt.05.07.2017. The applicants further contended that there being vacancies available, the applicant No.1, 2 & 5 have moved before this Tribunal seeking a direction to complete the selection process by convening Selection Committee Meeting and promote such of those officers found suitable. This Tribunal, by order, dt. 19.07.2017 in OA No. 548/2007 has directed the respondents to act in accordance with the provisions of law governing the field with further direction to complete the selection process based on the finalized seniority list of the State Service officers vide GO Ms. No. 39, dt.
05.07.2017.
(iii) The respondents State did not comply with the said order and therefore, CP was filed and after taking cognizance of the same by this Tribunal by summoning contemnors, Selection Committee meeting was convened on 24.05.2018, in which, the Selection Committee considered the names of the applicants and having found them suitable, the Committee recommended their names for appointmen
