Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS – Appellant
Versus
C.Munisamy – Respondent
WA 596 2023
PROMOTION - FOREST DEPARTMENT - SENIORITY - PROMOTION TO THE POST OF RANGER - TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY AS FORESTER, WHICH IS THE FEEDER CATEGORY FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF RANGER - SENIORITY IN THE POST OF FOREST GUARD LOSES ITS RELEVANCE ON BEING PROMOTED AS FORESTER.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, challenged the order of the learned Judge dated 19.12.2019, whereby the order dated 23.12.2009 drawing the panel of Foresters fit for promotion to the post of Forest Rangers for the year 2009-10 was quashed by the learned Judge primarily on the premise that the order had been passed by overlooking and in gross disregard to Rule 36 (b)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the promotion to the post of Ranger ought to have been made only on the basis of the combined seniority list in the post of Forester. The submission of the appellant that promotion to the post of Ranger shall be determined on the basis of seniority in the category of Forest Guard overlooks the settled position in service jurisprudence that the services rendered in one cadre will not count for seniority in another cadre. Seniority in lower post viz., Forest Guard loses significance on promotion as Forester for consideration of promotion to the post of Ranger.
Issues: Whether promotion to the post of Ranger should be made on the basis of seniority as Forest Guard or Forester?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasad Sharma V. State of Mizoram reported in (1997) 4 SCC 422, wherein it was held that seniority in lower post loses its significance on promotion.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal and held that the order of the learned Judge does not require any interference by us.
W.A. No.596 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A. No.596 of 2023
and
C.M.P. No.5796 of 2023
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Panagal Maaligai,
No. 1, Jeenis Salai,
Saidapet, Chennai.
... Appellant
Vs.
1. Mr.C. Munisamy,
2. Mr.M.Muthupandi,
Forester, Kodaikanal Division,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3. Mr.N.Muthaiya,
Forest Range Officer,
Social Forest Range,
Coimbatore-2.
4. Mr.Nagaiya,
Forest Range Officer,
Kodaikanal Division,
Dindigul district.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.596 of 2023
5. Mr.A.Sreenivasan,
Forest Range Officer,
Coimbatore Circle Office,
Coimbatore-2.
6. Mr.S,Balasubramanian,
Forest Range Oficer,
O/o, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Maaligai,
No.1.Jeenis Salai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying
to set aside the order of this Court in W.P.No.6893 of 2010 dated
19.12.2019.
For Appellant
: Mr.Silambanan, AAG
assisted by Dr.T.Seenivasan, SGP
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Jothiraman -R1
No appearance - R6
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by Mohammed Shaffiq, J.)
The present intra Court appeal is filed challenging the order of the
learned Judge dated 19.12.2019 whereby the order dated 23.12.2009
drawing the panel of Foresters fit for promotion to the post of Forest
Rangers for the year 2009-10 was quashed by the learned Judge primarily
2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.596 of 2023
on the premise that the order had been passed by overlooking and in gross
disregard to Rule 36 (b)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service
Rules.
2. Brief facts:
2.1. The 1st Respondent herein joined as Forest Guard on 16.10.1980
and promoted as Forester on 16.03.1995. The next avenue of promotion is
to the post of Ranger. The appellant herein had drawn up a panel of
Foresters fit for promotion as Rangers for the year 2009-10. The crucial date
was taken to be 15.08.2009. The 1st Respondent's name was left out in the
said panel. Hence, he submitted a representation to the appellant on
26.12.2019 to include his name in the panel.
2.2. As there was no response to the above representation, a writ
petition in W.P.No.6893 of 2010 was filed challenging the above
proceedings dated 23.12.2009, arraying the following persons as
respondents 2 to 6 inasmuch as they were promoted as Rangers ahead of the
first respondent herein, though they were juniors to him, in the post of
Forester, which is the feeder category to the post of Ranger:
3/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.596 of 2023
(i) Mr.M.Muthupandi
(ii) Mr.N.Muthaiya
(iii) Mr.Nagaiya
(iv) Mr.A.Sreenivasan
(v) Mr.S.Balasubramian
2.3. A counter affidavit was filed by the appellant in the writ petition,
wherein it was stated that promotion to the post of Forester from the
category of Forest Guard was done as per the combined Seniority list of
Forest Guards appointed upto 31.12.1980. The 1st Respondent's name was
found at Sl.No.380 vide proceedings dated 08.09.1994, while the name of
the individuals fit for promotion as Forest Range Officer was considered
only upto Seniority No.293 in the said list. The 1st Respondent's name was
not included in the said panel inasmuch as he had not reached the zone of
consideration. In other words, promotion to the post of Ranger was made on
the basis of the seniority list of Forest Guards and since the Respondents 2
to 6 were seniors to the 1st Respondent in the combined seniority list of
Forest Guards, though Juniors to the 1st Respondent in the post of Forester,
their names were included in the panel drawn for promotion to the post of
Forest Ranger, vide the proceedings dated 23.12.2009 impugned in the writ
petitio
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
