AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—1. Challenge in this appeal, is to the order, made in W.P(MD) No. 12678 of 2011, dated 27.07.2012, by which, a learned single Judge has directed the appellants, to fix the crucial date for the panel of Assistant Conservator of Forests, for the year 2011-12 as 15.08.2011 and consequently, directed that the respondent be placed above his immediate juniors. Writ Court further directed that the said exercise has been directed to be carried out, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the abovesaid order.
Facts deduced from the material on record are that in the year 1980, the respondent joined as a Forester in Sreevilliputhur Division. He was selected for promotion to the post of Ranger, vide proceedings, dated 25.03.2000, and deputed for training in April 2000 at Coimbatore Ranger Training College. On 06.11.2000, the respondent joined as Ranger at Aringnar Anna Zoological Park, Vandalur, Chennai.
One Mr. A. Chinnadurai, has filed W.P. No. 25360 of 2006, for a Mandamus, directing the respondents therein, to fix the crucial date of the panel of Forest Rangers, fit for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests, for the year 2006-07, as 15.08.2006 instead of 15.08.2005, and consequently, to include his name in the panel for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties therein, vide order dated 13.03.2007, this Court in W.P. No. 25360 of 2006, directed that the crucial date for the panel of Forest Rangers fit for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests for the year 2006-07, be fixed as 15.08.2006 instead of 15.08.2005. Though respondents therein, challenged the order of the learned single Judge, in W.A. No. 926 of 2007, a Hon''ble Division Bench, by order, dated 18.07.2007, dismissed the appeal.
Thereafter, on 07.09.2011, a seniority list of Forest Rangers fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, for the year 2011-12, has been issued, by fixing the crucial date as 15.08.2010. According to the writ petitioner, the crucial date should be 15.08.2011 and not 15.08.2010. In the abovesaid circumstances, the respondent has filed W.P. No. 12678 of 2011 for the following relief:--
''''To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(Ms) No. 104, dated 07.09.2011 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to fix the crucial date of the panel of Assistant Conservator of Forests for the year 2011-2012 as 15.08.2011 instead of 15.08.2010 and include the name of petitioner herein, in the said panel and to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the panel for the year 2011-12, placing him above the immediate junior.''''
By filing a detailed counter affidavit, the appellants have opposed the prayer sought for. Before the Writ Court, the question that arose for consideration was that when the panel for the year 2011-12, was drawn, for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests from the post of Forest Ranger, what should be the crucial date. While adverting to the above, the Writ Court considered the earlier decision made in W.P. No. 25360 of 2006 dated 13.03.2007 and confirmed in W.A. No. 926 of 2007 dated 18.07.2007. Reasoning contained in the operative portion of the order made in W.P. No. 25360 of 2006 dated 13.03.2007, and confirmed on appeal, is reproduced hereunder:--
"The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:
"to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix the crucial date of the panel of Forest Rangers fit for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests for the year 2006-2007 as 15.08.2006 instead of 15.08.2005 and to include the name of the petitioner herein, in the said panel for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests, and to promote the petitioner as such, notwithstanding the punishment imposed in Pro. No. R2/31451/2001, dated 23.03.2004 of the second respondent and the pendency of the charge memo Na.Ka. No. Pa.1/1508/92, dated 31.03.1952 of the Deputy Director M.K. Forest wild life Sanctuary, Ambasamudram".
It is admitted by the learned counsel on either side that in an identical set of facts, for the year 2006-07, the crucial date has been fixed as 2005 and this Court in Writ Petition W.P. No. 3697 of 2006 on 09.11.2006 has passed an order whereby the crucial date has been directed to be regarded as 15.08.2006. Hence, in this Writ Petition also an order to that effect can be passed.
In view of the consensus among the counsel, this writ petition is also disposed of to that effect that for the year 2006-07 for preparation of panel the crucial date would be 15.08.2006 and the respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with law by fixing the crucial date as 15.08.2006."
From the perusal of the order impugned in W.P(MD) No. 12678 of 2011, it could be deduced that before the Writ Court, submission has been made to the effect that a review application has been filed, against the order made in W.P. No. 25360 of 2006 dated 13.03.2007, and several adjournments have been granted, to find out the stage of the review application. The appellants have submitted that the review application was in SR stage.
Observing that without considering the orders passed by this Court, appellants have fixed the crucial date, for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests from the post of Forest Ranger as 15.08.2010, instead of 15.08.2011, the Writ Court, seemed to have posed a question, as to the finality of the review petition stated to have been filed.
After going through rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Service Rules, Writ Court has further observed that the crucial date fixed for appointment to the category of Assistant Conservator of Forests, should be 15th of every year.
Thus, after adverting to the relevant rule and the earlier orders stated supra, by order dated 27.07.2012, W.P. No. 12678 of 2011 has been allowed. Being aggrieved by the abovesaid order, present appeal has been filed.
Assailing the correctness of the order impugned, Mr. A.K. Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants, submitted that the Writ Court, has failed to appreciate various Government orders and guidelines issued by the Government from time to time, in the matter of fixing crucial date, for preparing a panel, for appointment of officers to State service, by recruitment by transfer.
He further submitted that the Writ Court has failed to consider that as per rule 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Service Rules, no person shall be eligible for appointment by recruitment by transfer as Assistant Conservator of Forests, unless he has passed the Account Test, for Executive Officer and Departmental Test in Forest Revenue and has completed 8 years of service. He also invited the attention of this Court to various stages followed by the department in preparing the panel for promotion, which are extracted hereunder:--
"i) On completion of crucial date fixed (15th August, 2010) for acquiring qualifications, the estimate of vacancies be sent to Commission on 15th September, 2010;
ii) Panel proposal sent to Government on 15th October, 2010;
iii) DPC meeting on 8th January, 2011 for selecting the candidates;
iv) approved list would be communicated to Government by the Tamil
Nadu Public Service Commission on 18th January 2011; and
v) the vacancies that would arise from 19th January, 2011 to 18th January, 2012 be filled by from the selected candidates in the approved panel."
Yet another submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the above time schedule is being uniformly adopted, by all departments and any deviation from the same, would have serious impact on administration.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
Going through the order impugned, we find that before the Writ Court, submissions have been advanced by the appellants, that a review application against the order in W.P. No. 25360 of 2006 dated 13.03.2007, has been made. Like the Writ Court, we also wanted to ascertain the stage of the review application and granted sufficient time. There is no proper response. At the time when W.P(MD) No. 12678 of 2011, was filed, respondent was aged about 57 years and since 1980, he had put in nearly 31 years of service. Since 2000, he had worked as Forest Ranger.
In 2012, after a passage of one year, from the date of filing of the writ petition in 2011, he would have attained the age of superannuation. W.P(MD) No. 12678 of 2011 has been disposed of on 27.07.2012. Writ appeal seemed to have been filed in the year 2012 and now after 4 years, the same has been numbered and moved for admission.
Perusal of the order impugned in W.P(MD) No. 12678 of 2011, dated 27.07.2012, makes it abundantly clear that the order made in W.P. No. 25360 of 2006, dated 13.03.2007, fixing the crucial date as 15.08.2006 instead of 15.08.2005 for the year 2006-07, has been affirmed by an order of a Hon''ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 926 of 2007, dated 18.07.2007. Order made by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 25360 of 2006, dated 13.03.2007, has merged in W.A. No. 926 of 2007. Having lost the appeal, we are unable to understand as to how a review application can be made against the order made in W.P. No. 25360 of 2006 and on that pretext, adjournment is sought for.
Though Mr. A.K. Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader has contended that the Writ Court has failed to consider that the crucial date 15.08.2010, had been fixed, taking into consideration the instructions contained in Government Letter No. 1314/Per.M/94-4, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 19.10.1994, and any deviation from the same, would affect the administration, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention, for the reason that the appellants have not disputed a fact, recorded by the Writ Court, that as per rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Service Rules, the crucial date shall be fixed for appointment to the category of Assistant Conservator of Forests on 15th of every year, which means 15.10.2011 and not 15.10.2010. We do not find any ground against the said finding of fact, based on the said rule. Needless to state that administrative/executive instructions cannot override the statutory rules.
Thus, the Writ Court, by rightly placing reliance on the earlier orders of this Court, on similar set of facts, for the year 2006-07, has allowed W.P(MD) No. 12678 of 2011 on 27.07.2012, and directed the appellants, to fix the crucial date of the panel of Assistant Conservator of Forests, for the year 2011-12 as 15.08.2011, instead of 15.08.2010, and accordingly directed that the respondent be placed above his immediate juniors.
No valid grounds have been made out for interference. Hence, the Writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Citing the pendency of the present appeal, if the appellants have not implemented the order made in W.P(MD) No. 12678 of 2011, dated 27.07.2012, they are directed to do so forthwith. Consequently, C.M.P(MD) No. 2117 of 2016 is closed.