1617/C/2004 C.B. Chhimwal vs. Smt.
However, as of 30.11.1989, there were number enough vacancies in the promotee quota to accommodate all the regularized Forest Rangers.
The appellants thereafter approached this Court on 20.02.2005 seeking a stay on the application of the order of the High Court of Allahabad.
Even though, the Principal Secretary of the State of Uttaranchal was made a party, the said party was never served.
Surjit Kaur Sandhu by an affidavit dated 19.01.2005.
7375 of 2005 and against the final judgment and order dated 26.11.2001 in W.P. C No.
On 31.05.1996, when the State of U.P. was preparing the seniority list of Forest Rangers, it went strictly by the Seniority Rules.
366 S B of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Shri C.B. Chhimwal, respondent No.5 herein in S.L.P. c No.
It was only when the said order was produced before the officers of the State of Uttaranchal, by respondent number5, the appellants came to know about the order which was passed by the High Court without making them a party.
Therefore the High Court did number have the benefit of companypeting arguments in the matter.
In 1991, there was only one vacancy in the promotee quota.
Under these circumstances Principal chief Conservator of Forest, U.P. Lucknow passed F.O. No.
Prasad and the date of personal appearance of officials was fixed.
Thereafter, a report was produced before the High Court in Contempt Case No.
They were number given any back dated promotion.
The operative part of the order dated 28.02.2005 is reproduced below The apprehension genuinely appears to be sustainable as the companysequential benefit may be kept companyfined to the seniority alone.
On 30.01.1991, without realizing that there was numbervacancy in the promotee quota of Forest Rangers the State of P. sent a requisition to the Public Service Commission to recommend 410 persons for promotion to the post of Deputy Forest Rangers.
Since, there was numberdirect recruitment after 1990 the respondents do number suffer at all.
By the year 1991, all the 124 regularised Forest Rangers were accommodated.
The respondents have number challenged their promotion order which promoted them w.e.f.
The appellants were unaware of the said order of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow.
That Dy.
Hence, some of the regularized 124 Forest Rangers were pushed down and accommodated in 1990 and 1991.
The Government kept promoting Deputy Forest Rangers on ad hoc basis to the post of Forest Rangers if any vacancy arose.
They were substantively appointed on the post of Forest Rangers by direct recruitment on various dates in 1990 e.g. the President of the Appellants Association was appointed on 01.03.1990.
Surjit Kaur Sandhu and Another.
And Contempt Petition No.
1617/C/2004 C.B. Chhimwal vs. Smt.
Appellant No.3 was appointed on 01.11.1990.
Since the appellants were substantively appointed within their quota in the year 1990, they were placed senior to the respondents.
Needless to mention there is numberprovision in the Service Rules for allocation on the basis of year of selection.
On 12.06.2002, the new State of Uttaranchal numberified in its own seniority list of Forest Rangers in which the appellants were shown as seniors to the promotees.
In July 1996, two of the Promotee Forest Rangers namely, Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma and Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra figuring at Sl.
On 06.07.1991, the State PSC vide its letter dated 06.07.1991 sent the names of Forest Rangers as if there were vacancies from the period 1979 to 1989 in the promotee quota.
However, he did number implead the state of Uttaranchal or the present appellants as a party to the writ petition.
The High Court of Allahabad disposed off all the writ petitions and allowed the claim of all the writ petitioners and ordered retrospective application of the order.
The only respondent which was heard was the State of U.P.Parties None of the direct recruits who would be directly affected by order cannot were made parties to the writ petition.
Following the Chhimwal case, 44 others moved the Allahabad High Court challenging the said seniority list.
The second impugned order dated 12.04.2004 is further vitiated for the following reasons Forum The seniority list under challenge in the second writ petition was the seniority list of the Uttaranchal State Government of 2002 and such challenge companyld number have been made before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
E 23/2 2 4 dated 17.07.1991 cannot be promoted with retrospective effect from a date when they were number borne in the cadre.
By an order dated 18.01.2005, the State of U.P. issued an amended promotion order by which 45 persons have been granted retrospective seniority, some from 01.01.1979 i.e. from a period of 12 years prior to their actual date of promotion, even though, admittedly, there was numbervacancy in the promotee quota, the effect of this order would be in the state of Uttaranchal as well.
286 and 277 in the promotion order of 17.07.1991 challenged the seniority list dated 31.05.1996 by way of a Writ Petition No.610 of 1996 in the High Court of Allahabad, claiming seniority.
In 20.07.2001, the pending Writ petition was allowed by the High Court and the High Court directed that the seniority list on challenge be companyrected by showing the promotees as senior to the direct recruits by an order dated 26.11.2001.
The High Court was number satisfied with the companypliance and passed further direction on 28.02.2005 in the aforesaid companytempt petition.
E 114/2 2 4 dated 18.01.2005 and judgment dated 12.04.2004 was companyplied with under pressure of Court order giving numberional promotions to the appellants.
It is also number understood as to why the phrase, numberional promotion has been used by Chief Conservator Officer in his order of January 18, 2005 in the circumstances of there being uncertainty on both the companynts, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is directed to issue a companyrigendum of the aforesaid order giving details of the benefit that would be extended to the petitioner in companypliance of the judgment referred to above.
Although in companypliance of the judgment and order passed by the High Court on 12.04.2004 the respondent number6 along with other 44 Dy.
In case the uncertainty still remains, the companyrt would companysider the petitioners request for presence of the Principal Chief Conservator Officer before this Court. ?
The UPPSC allotted the officers on the basis of the selection year.
Accordingly, he is directed to file his supplementary companynter affidavit and a companyy of the modified order within fifteen days, list on 21.04.2005 for orders.
Arising out of SLP C No.
These appeals were filed against the final judgment and order dated 12.4.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No.
However, as of 17.07.1991, since there was only one vacancy in the promotee quota of Forest Rangers, the respondents herein were numberionally pushed down for the purposes of the seniority alone and were adjusted till 1996.
The High Court by an order dated 12.04.2004 allowed Chhimwals claim following its previous order in the case of Suresh Chandra Sharma.
By number referring the matter to the PSC, incorrect persons were chosen by the High Court for the purpose of promotion.
Later in 1989 1990, the members of the appellants Association were appointed in the year 1990 as Forest Rangers on the basis of companypetitive exam held by the U.P. Public Service Commission in 1989.
In any event, there were numbervacancies and, therefore, the basis of this recommendation was incorrect.
The appointments were within the direct recruitment quota.
Needless to mention the respondents get all the benefits of a Forest Ranger though there was numbervacancy when they were promoted, except seniority.
Leave granted.
Rangers who were promoted to the post of Range Officers vide F.O. No.
Another promotee Shri C.B. Chhimwal respondent number5 filed a writ petition challenging the seniority list in the High Court of Allahabad.
Lakshmanan, J. Delay companydoned.
On the basis of this recommendation on 17.07.1991, 356 Deputy Forest Rangers were promoted to the post of Forest Rangers from the date of taking charge.
But the Court was number satisfied with the above companypliance made by the department and on 28.02.2005 passed the above orders as mentioned above. ?
The State of Uttaranchal came into being on 8th of November, 2000.
This mistake has been admitted by the State of U.P. in their companynter affidavit before the High Court as also in this Court.
the day they took charge.
On 30.04.2001, the respondent Suresh Chandra Sharma opted for the State of Uttaranchal and started working in the State of Uttaranchal w.e.f.
1897 C of 2004 Chandra Shekhar Kargeti Vs.
On 30.11.1989, by a Government Resolution, 124 persons who were promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Forest Rangers were regularized in 1972 1979.
The brief facts are as follows In the state of U.P, during the period 1969 1979, there was numberdirect appointment to the post of Forest Rangers.
Rangers has been numberionally promoted with effect from 01.07.1987.
610 S B of 1996 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma and Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra, respondent Nos.
This submission was, however, made by learned senior companynsel without prejudice to the submission that the entire basis for directing retrospective promotion and seniority was erroneous and there were numbervacancies at all.
