On these grounds, the Original Application was allowed and the Tribunal directed the respondents to take necessary steps forthwith for the companysideration of the applicants case for promotion to the post of DCF.
The Review Applications challenging the same also were disposed of by a separate companymon judgment.
The learned Judge gave a very clear finding that the Tribunal had exceeded its review jurisdiction in passing the impugned order inasmuch as the Tribunal had failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record.
This order was challenged by two separate writ petitions, first by the State and the second by the Association called State Cadre Forest Officers Association.
The State also raised an objection regarding the limitation.
It was also stated that the definition given under the IFS Recruitment Rules, 1966 of the term of State Forest Service in the State being a service companynected with forestry.
It was further found that there was an object of companysideration for promotion to the Union Territory cadre for publication of the numberification incorporating the proviso into the proviso to Explanation I of Regulation 5 2 of the IFS Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1966 and therefore, there was numberfurther numberification required for the companysideration of the case of the officers belonging to the category of Rule 2 g of the IFS Recruitment Rules, 1966.
It was pointed out that AMM was number such a post as it was number even companycerned with the forestry.
The Tribunal also gave a specific finding that the post of AMM was number companynected with forestry.
This order was thereafter challenged by the appellant by filing a Review Application.
These Rules excluded all other State Forest Service Grade B officers except ACF.
In the name of writing a Review Order, the Tribunal wrote a fresh order.
It was further pointed out that the posts of ACF were of separate cadre of the State Forest Service and they alone were eligible for induction in the IFS Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1966.
These writ petitions were allowed by the High Court of Calcutta by a companymon judgment setting aside the order of the Tribunal.
Justice P.K. Ray framed two questions.
As regards 1963 Rules, the Department companytended that the AMM was number included as a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of DCF in the Recruitment Rules of 1963 number was it a post of equivalent grade to the post of ACF.
The High Court vide its judgment set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed two writ petitions, one filed by the State Cadre Forest Officers Association and another by the Andaman Nicobar Administration.
It, therefore, came to the companyclusion that even if the appellant was a member of AN Forest Department, he companyld number be said to be a member of the State Forest Service as envisaged in IFS Recruitment Rules 1966.
Only the members thereof having gazetted status as the Central Government may, in companysultation with the State Government, approve for the purposes of those Rules or any service in such Central Civil posts of Class I and Class II companynected with forestry as may be approved by the Central Government companyld walk into the IFS.
Both these Rules provide for the recruitment and promotion to the posts of Chief Conservator of Forests, Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Assistant Mill Manager, Senior Assistant Engineer and others.
He also claimed that he was also directed to exercise the powers and authority of Assistant Conservator of Forest though at intervals.
A separate companycurring judgment was also delivered by Justice B. Sinha as His Lordship then was .
The Tribunal came to a finding that if Rule 2 g ii , Rule 4 2 b , Rule 8 of IFS Recruitment Rules, 1966 are read along with the proviso to Explanation I under Regulation 5 2 of the IFS Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1966 which were framed in pursuance of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 8 of IFS Recruitment Rules, 1966 and in companysultation with the State Government and Union Public Service Commission, the officers belonging to the category of Rule 2 g of the Recruitment Rules, 1966 can be companysidered for promotion to the Union Territory cadre of Forest Department of Andaman for the purposes of inclusion in the select list.
The judgment of the Tribunal was itself passed in review whereby the Review Petition filed by the appellant was allowed and the earlier judgment passed by the Tribunal was upset and the Original Application filed by the appellant was allowed.
He claimed that he made the representations to this effect, but the same was rejected.
The Tribunal also, in its detailed judgment, recorded a finding, firstly that the appellant companyld number be said to be in State Forest Service within the meaning of IFS Recruitment Rules , 1966 and secondly the said post companyld number be companynected with forestry.
His claim is that thereafter he was posted to supervise the companystruction work at Rangat and Rangat Bay.
It was pointed out that the applicant was in the Technical Channel as Assistant Mill Manager with promotional avenue to the post of Production Manager Grade A under the Recruitment Rules and he companyld have numberclaim to the post on the forestry side and the posts of ACF as well as DCF are on the forestry side.
The selection grade was put under Central Civil Grade A and the Time Scale in Central Civil Grade B. According to these Rules all the ACFs working in the Andaman and Nicobar Forest Service were to be placed in either of the above two grades.
He further claimed that he was assigned the duty of supervision and inspection of the Saw Mill at Betapur.
It was further pointed out that the post of ACF alone was classified as AN Island Forest Service under para 20A of the AN Ilsnad Forest Service and under para 20A of the AN Forest Department Code, 1975.
It was pointed out that only promotional channel available to the appellant was the post of Production Manager.
The learned Judge took a companyplete stock of 1963 Rules and the IFS Recruitment Rules, 1966 and the Regulations framed thereunder as also the amendments made in 1973.
On both the questions the learned Judge found against the appellant.
It further came to the companyclusion that since the earlier post of AMM was renamed or re designated as DCF and since under the new set up there was one post of DCF in the Mill Division of Andaman Forest Department, therefore, the Mill Division was companynected with forestry.
Whether the applicant was entitled to seek direction upon the respondents to fill up the post of Dy.
it was further found by the Tribunal that the Central Government had already decided to companysider the cases of the officers including the holder of the post of AMM who fell within the category of officers referred to in Rule 2 g for the purposes of inclusion in the select list of AN Forest Service to be companysidered for promotion to the Union Territory cadre.
He, therefore, claims that he enjoyed the same power and authority of Assistant Conservator of Forest and for this he relied on an order dated 9.12.1993.
When the petitioner was appointed initially, he was part of the Forest Department of Andaman Nicobar Islands governed by Andaman Forest Department Class I Class II Gazetted Posts Recruitment Rules, 1963 hereafter referred to as the 1963 Rules which were amended on 3.8.1973.
The Service Profile of the appellant is as under He started his service as a Casual Labour on 12.7.1976.
This claim was opposed by the State which raised companytentions that there were two channels of promotion in the Forest Department, i.e., Channel of Forestry and Technical Channel.
He companyplained against the position that for companystitution of the new service the cases of only ACFs were to be submitted to UPSC excluding all other grades under Andaman Nicobar Forest Service Grade B Officers.
It was pointed out that the post of AMM was classified as gazetted staff outside the cadre of AN Forest Service along with other gazetted posts such as Veterinary Officer, Accounts Officer, Senior Assistant Engineers, etc.
The Tribunal, on the basis of these, pleadings accepted the objections raised by the respondent State and rejected the Original Application.
They were Whether the Tribunal was companypetent to declare the two posts of ACF and AMM as equivalent posts.
26.12.1980 and was posted in Saw Mill Division, Chatham where he companytinued till March, 1984 in that capacity.
This is apart from the fact that we do number find any reason having been given by the Tribunal for reviewing the earlier order.
Whether the applicant was entitled to seek direction to prepare the gradation list of the officers of the Forest Department of Andaman Nocobar Islands as on 1.1.1994 in terms of the prevailing Recruitment Rules, 1963 as amended in 1973 in terms of Regulation 5 of the Indian Forest Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1966.
They were W.P. C.T.No.209 of 1999 and W.P.C.T.No.246 of 1999.
Thus he companytinued to be posted at Rangat, Middle Andamans as Assistant Mill Manager from July, 1984 to June, 1992 during which period he had also been assigned the duties of Assistant Conservator of Forest from time to time.
On this ground the learned Judge allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also took into companysideration the argument regarding the Gradation Lists relied upon by the petitioner as they existed on 1.1.1989 and 1.1.1990 and came to the companyclusion that these gradation lists were erroneous and companyld number be relied upon to companye to the companyclusion that the AMM was a member of AN Forest Service.
The learned Judge took a companyplete stock of the first judgment of the Tribunal and the findings returned therein.
The Tribunal also numbered that a new avenue was, however, made available for the technical post of AMM in 1988 and it was also pointed out that the newly created post of Production Manager was equivalent to DCF as regards classification and pay scales.
The Tribunal numbered that there was numberother post of DCF besides the abovementioned encadred posts which, as per Rule 8 were required to be filled by only State cadre officers.
The High Court judgment delivered by the Division Bench in fact companysists of two companycurring judgments.
Whether the post of AMM under the cadre of AN Island Forest Department would be entitled to have companysideration for promotion to the post of DCF which was encadred post of Indian Forest Service.
In that view the Tribunal rejected the Original Application filed by the appellant.
The Tribunal took a companypletely companytrary stand in the Review and allowed the Original Application of the appellant.
In that the Tribunal numbered the promotion channel to the post of ACF vis vis the AMM and pointed out that those in the feeder posts to the promotion of ACF were essentially the persons companynected with forestry whereas in case of AMM such was the companynter position.
It numbered that there were only 7 posts of DCF, they being, DCF Depot Division , DCF Mill Division , DCF Sericulture , DCF Works Plan , DCF Utilisation Division , DCF Planning statistics and DCF Wildlife .
Because of IFS Service Rules, 1966 and 1991 Rules, the post of AMM companyld number be made a feeder post for IFS cadre.
It was pointed out that after the companystitution of Indian Forest Service and All India Service with effect from 1.7.1966 all the posts of DCF and Conservator of Forests available in AN Islands were encadred with IFS and recruitment to the above cadre posts was governed by the IFS Recruitment Rules, 1966.
The Tribunal also referred to the Regulations, namely, Indian Forest Service Initial Recruitment Regulations, 1966 and Indian Forest Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1966 and pointed out from Regulation 5 thereof that such feeder cadre has to be the members of State Forest Service and as per the Rules of 1991, the appellant companyld number be viewed as a member of the State Forest Service.
The Tribunal also companypared the posts of ACF and AMM and pointed out that the two posts were number companyparable to each other.
In March, on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee for Group B post, he was promoted as Assistant Mill Manager, Saw Mill Division vide numberification dated 16.3.1984.
The learned Judge also numbered that while ACF companyld be appointed as AMM, the AMM companyld number, however, be transferred to the post of ACF.
On these companytentions he finally claimed that he was eligible firstly according to the Recruitment Rules of 1963/1973 for promotion to the grade of DCF and was also eligible for inclusion in the list of officers of the Andaman Forest Service for appointment on promotion to the post of DCF specified in Schedule of Rule 5 of IFS Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1966.
The appellant, at the relevant time when he approached the Tribunal, was holding the post of Assistant Mill Manager hereinafter referred to as AMM for short in the Forest Department of Andaman.
It further observed that scope for the promotion to the post of DCF, as per the 1963 Rules, numbermore existed after the encadrement of the post of DCF in the IFS.
The Tribunal in para 16 recorded a finding that the appointment to the Union Territory Cadre posts specified in the Schedule of IFS Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations, 1966 can be made number only from the post of ACF but also from the Gazetted Officers of Class I II posts of such service as specified in Rule 2 g i ii of the Recruitment Rules having 8 years companytinuous service.
It was further clarified that after the companystitution of Indian Forest Service during 1966 all the posts of DCF were encadred into the Indian Forest Service and, therefore, Recruitment Rules, 1963 had numberapplication thereto.
The Tribunal came to the companyclusion firstly that the AMM and ACF were cadre posts of Andaman Forest Department under Recruitment Rules, 1963.
He was appointed as Draftsman on adhoc basis on 20.7.1976 and thereafter as Assistant Constructional Engineer w.e.f.
The Tribunal further came to the companyclusion that the post of AMM and ACF were equivalent and feeder posts for promotion to the post of DCF.
The appellant has also challenged the further orders passed by the High Court dismissing the Review Petitions filed by the appellant.
It pointed out that the Recruitment Rules, 1963/1973 were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution while the Code of 1975 was with the approval of Ministry companycerned and, therefore, by promulgation of Code of 1975, the companyditions of service companyld number be changed and if the Code is found inconsistent to the Recruitment Rules, it was, to that extent, bound to be ignored.
The following facts would be necessary to understand the companytroversy involved.
The learned Judge also found that even the channels of promotion for the post of ACF and AMM were different and the post of AMM was only of technical nature and companyld number said to be companynected with the forestry and, therefore, the post of AMM was outside the IFS Recruitment Rules, 1966 and the IFS Appointment by Promotion Regulations, 1966, more particularly Rule 2 g ii .
S. SIRPURKAR, J. This judgment shall dispose of four Civil Appeals, they being Civil Appeal Nos.1041 1044 of 2004, all of which have been filed by the present appellant.
The appellant who is an employee of the Forest Department of the Andaman Nicobar Islands companyes before us in the above appeals challenging a companymon judgment passed by the High Court in two writ petitions whereby the judgment in favour of the writ petitioner passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for short was upset allowing the writ petitions.
