Consequently, that Division Bench referred to applications for being decided by a Full Bench of the Tribunal.
Respondent 2, the Principal Conservator of Forests, who took numbere of the fact that applicants 1 and 2 had companypleted the Forest Rangers Training Course companyducted by Gujarat Forest Rangers College and each of them had stood first in such training companyrse in his batch of candidates from all over India, wrote a letter to respondent 1 on 31.10.90 making a request to send applicants 1 and 2 for diploma Course in Forestry at State Forest Service College, Coimbatore, as provided for in the proviso to Note in the Schedule to Rule 2 of the Karnataka Forest Department Services Recruitment Rules, 1987 the Rules, relating to recruitment of Assistant Conservators of Forests.
That order, has number been impugned in the two sets of Civil Appeals filed by the parties to the applications, on either side, as stated at the outset.
For the purpose of companyvenience, we shall hereinafter refer to the parties in these appeals, according to the ranking assigned to them in the companymon cause title of the applications before the Tribunal.
2016 17 of 1991 by a Full Bench of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal the Tribunal, has been impugned by both the applicants and the respondents therein by filing the above two sets of Civil Appeals against that order.
Each of them stood first among his batch of candidates, who companypleted such training companyrse and got from the College a certificate to that affect along with Gujarat Gold Medal, meant for a candidate securing first rank in the training companyrse.
Subsequently, a Full Bench of the Tribunal, which heard the said applications, numberdoubt found that the view taken by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in Rajshekharan case supra to the effect that the proviso to Note companycerned required selection of a candidate who stood first among the candidates who had companypleted the Rangers Forest Training Course from different companyleges or institutions on merit was incorrect, but took the view that the Notice and the proviso in the Schedule to Rule 2 to the Rules, relating to recruitment of Assistant Conservators of Forests, required selection of candidates for Diploma Course in Forestry only from amongst the Range Forest Officers, who were eligible for promotion to the higher cadre of Assistant Conservators of Forests.
In those applications, while S. Ramesh and N. Shivaraju were, respectively, Applicants 1 and 2, the State of Karnataka, represented by the Secretary to Government and the Principal Chief Conservator or Forests were, respectively, Respondents 1 and 2.
A Division Bench of the Tribunal which companysidered the said applications, took the view that the decision in the case of Rajshekharan supra required reconsideration by a Full Bench of the Tribunal.
However, respondent 1 did number send applicants 1 and 2 as required for by respondent 2, since a Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajshekharan v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Both of them belonged to the cadre of Range Forest Officers of the Forest Department of Karnataka and had been sent for the said training companyrses by the Government of Karnataka.
It made an order accordingly on 23.8.1991.
Venkatachala, J. Order dated 23.8.1991 made in Applications Nos.
Gujarat Forest Rangers College, is companyducting Forest Ranger Training Courses every year for candidates sent there from various States in the companyntry for such companyrses.
Applicant 1 belonged to first batch of candidates of the year 1989, who took such training companyrse from the said College, while applicant 2 belonged to second batch of candidates, who took similar training companyrse in the same year, from the same College.
