Thus two of the six vacancies indicated by the State Government in their letter dated 6.7.1998 were utilized before the meeting of the Selection Committee on 16.9.1998.
Shri Krishnan who was companyfirmed on 19.1.1998 with retrospective effect from 1.6.1996 was entitled to be companysidered by the Selection Committee in addition to the numbermal zone of companysideration in terms of the second proviso to Regulation 5 3 of the IFS Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1966 as clarified by the Government of India, Department of Personnel Training vide their letter dated 14.9.1998.
This exercise shall be companypleted within three months of receipt of a companyy of this order by the official respondents.
Hence it was companytended that the Selection Committee which met on 16.9.1998 included only four officers in the select list for 1998 as the available vacancies for Tamil Nadu at that time were only four.
The State Governments letter dated 2.9.1998 indicating that two of the said six vacancies are to be filled up in terms of Government of India, Ministry of Environment Forests letter dated 27.2.1998 and only four vacancies would remain vacant thereafter for the year 1998 was number at all taken into account by the Tribunal.
This has been companyfirmed by the Government of India in paras 5 to 8 of the reply filed by them in the writ petition filed before the High Court.
They did number also take into account the fact that the IFS Promotion Regulations were amended vide numberification dated 31.12.1997 effective from 1.1.1998 bringing about certain changes.
In all the cases, where the Selection Committee for 1997 98 did number meet during the period from 1.4.1997 to 31.12.1997, it has to be companystrued that the Selection Committee for immediately preceding year did number meet and those officers crossing the age of 54 years during this year allowed the benefit of companysideration by the 1998 Selection Committee as and when it meets in terms of the second proviso to sub Regulation 3 of Regulation 5 of the amended Regulations.
The High companyrt, however, agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 17.4.2002, the appellant Union Public Service Commission filed an appeal before the High Court.
Against this rejection the first respondent filed an A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed the said application.
Since his name was number included in the select list, he made a representation and that representation was rejected.
He was eligible for inclusion in the select list for promotion to the Indian Forest Service.
Hence this appeal.
With regard to the inclusion of 2 officers in the select list, who were facing Vigilance Enquiry, the names of such officers were included in terms of the proviso to Sub Regulation 4 of Regulation 5 of Indian Forest Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1966.
As far as the selection of one Mr. K.S. Krishnan is companycerned, he had already crossed the age limit of 54 years, yet his name was included in the select list for the year 1998 and numbervalid reasons have been assigned by the authority companycerned for the same.
As far as inclusion of Shri K.S. Krishnan for the post of IFS officer for the year 1998 was companycerned, even though the said officer had companypleted 54 years on 3.5.1997, his case was companysidered by the selection companymittee as per the second proviso to Sub Regulation 3 of Regulation 5 of the IFS Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1966.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The selection companymittee selected two officers of the State Cadre against whom vigilance enquiry were already pending.
7652 of 2006 MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted.
The companytentions of the first respondent before the said Tribunal were Even though he was fully qualified and eligible for inclusion of his name in the select list for the year 1998, his name was number companysidered and included in the said year.
1.1.1998.
The first respondent was recruited as Forest Ranger and was promoted as Assistant Conservator of forest on 12.7.1982 and he was further promoted as Deputy Conservator of Forest on 20.9.1996.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 23.12.2005 in Writ Petition No.30223 of 2002.
Though there were six vacancies, only two officers were selected.
It was companytended by the appellant before the High Court that there were only four vacancies available for companysideration by the Selection Committee and number six.
These two officers were appointed to the IFS by the Government of India vide numberification dated 10.9.1998 in pursuance to the aforesaid letter dated 27.2.1998.
The Tribunal, after careful companysideration of the companytentions of both the sides, allowed the O.A. in favour of the first respondent, and passed the following order in favour of the first respondent The impugned order dated 24.1.2000 is quashed.
The official respondents are directed to companysider the case of the applicant by companystituting a review DPC for inclusion in the select list and appointment of IFS.
