The State of Tamil Nadu and The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vs V. Alagumalai

Chitra Venkataraman, J.—The State is on appeal as against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.04.2012 in W.P. (MD) No. 12244 of 2011. The writ petitioner / respondent herein is a Forest Ranger. The next avenue of promotion from the post of Forest Ranger is Assistant Conservator of Forests. As per G.O.Ms. No. 104, Environment and Forest (FR 1) Department, dated 07.09.2011 43 Rangers were empanelled for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests. Although the writ petitioner''s name figured in Sl. No. 14, he was not given posting. Hence the writ petitioner filed a writ of mandamus to direct the first appellant herein to give effect to the empanelment as per G.O.Ms. No. 104, dated 07.09.2011. The plea of the writ petitioner was resisted by the appellants herein on the ground that as on the crucial date of preparation of panel for the year 2011-2012, i.e. on 15.08.2010, the writ petitioner herein suffered an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect. Such order was passed on 22.06.2010. Since the said penalty was in operation as on 15.08.2010, the posting order of the writ petitioner / respondent herein was cancelled, vide G.O.Ms. No. 102, Environment and Forests (FR. 1) Department, dated 30.03.2012.

In considering the prayer, the learned single Judge pointed out that as per the order dated 09.04.2011 issued by the District Forest Officer, Dindigul, the writ petitioner / respondent herein was granted increment from 01.07.2011 after the three months punishment period. Taking the crucial date for preparation of panel for the year 2011-2012 as 15.08.2011, considering the fact that punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative increment not being there, the writ petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion as per G.O.Ms. No. 104, dated 07.09.2011. Thus the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed by the State.

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants contended that considering Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Service Rules, the claim of the respondent could not be sustained. He submitted that the annual list for appointment to the category of Assistant Conservator of Forests by recruitment by transfer shall be prepared as per Rule 11, that the cut-off date as on which the candidate should possess the prescribed qualifications is 15th August of the immediate preceding year. As far as the question of considering the punishment suffered by the writ petitioner, even if it be a minor punishment, going by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in The Deputy Inspector General of Police and The Director General of Police Vs. V. Rani, the writ petitioner''s case could not be considered for further promotion.

The said contention was countered by the respondent herein by placing reliance on an order of this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 12678 of 2011 dated 27.07.2012, wherein this Court held that the crucial date for forming of the promotion panel to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests for the year 2011-2012 should be 15.08.2011 and not 15.08.2010. This Court granted relief to the writ petitioner therein by referring to the decision in W.A. No. 926 of 2007 confirming the order passed in W.P. No. 25360 of 2006 dated 13.03.2007, that the crucial date, viz. 15th August, has to be with reference to the year of the promotions given. Thus in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 12678 of 2011, taking the crucial date for drawing up of the panel for Assistant Conservator of Forests for the year 2011-2012 as 15.08.2011, rightly the learned single Judge granted the relief.

To this, learned Additional Government Pleader pointed out that even though the said order in W.P. (MD) No. 12678 of 2011 dated 27.07.2012 was not taken on appeal, going by Rule 11, the case of the writ petitioner could not be sustained.

We reject the contention of the appellants herein for the reason that Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Service Rules is clear in what it intends to convey. The said Rule reads as under:

Preparation of annual list.-The annual list for appointment to the category of Assistant Conservators of Forests by recruitment by transfer shall be prepared as follows:-

(i) Date on which the candidate should possess the prescribed qualifications.

15th August of every year.

(ii) Date by which the estimate of vacancies should be sent by the Chief Conservator of Forests every year to the Government.

15th September of every year.

(iii) Date by which proposals for selection for appointment to the posts should be sent by the Government of Tamil Nadu to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

15th October of every year.

(iv) Date by which the list of approved year. candidates should be communicated by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to the Government.

15th January of the succeeding

As is evident from a reading of the said Rule, the crucial date for the purpose of preparation of the annual list is stated to be 15th August of ''every year''. If the Rule contemplated the crucial date as 15th August of the immediate preceding year, then the expression in Rule 11 would be of different nature, in the sense that it should read as ''15th August of the immediate preceding year''. It is relevant to note that as regards the date by which the list of approved candidates is to be communicated by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to the Government, the Rule contemplated it as ''15th January of the succeeding year''. Thus when the Rule contemplated different year as the base for operation of sub-clauses (i) to (iv) and it specifically stated so, we find no reason to read ''15th August of every year'' with reference to preparation of the annual list for appointment to the category of Assistant Conservator of Forests by recruitment by transfer, as ''15th August of the previous year'', that annual list for promotion for 2011-2012 should have the crucial date fixed as 15th August 2010. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent herein, under similar circumstances, this Court had considered similar claim in W.P. (MD) No. 12678 of 2011 dated 27.07.2012. Evidently and admittedly, the appellants had not gone on appeal against the order in W.P. (MD) No. 12678 of 2011. Even otherwise, in W.P. No. 25360 of 2006 by order dated 13.03.2007, a similar question arose as regards the promotion to be considered for the year 2006-2007. Even in that case, the writ petitioner therein suffered punishment. Referring to the order in W.P. No. 3697 of 2006 dated 09.11.2006, where, for the year 2006-2007, the crucial date was directed to be regarded as 15.08.2006, this Court held that for the year 2006-2007, the crucial date for preparation of panel would be 15.08.2006 and not 15.08.2005. Thereafter, the order made in W.P. No. 25360 of 2006 on 13.03.2007 was tested in W.A. No. 926 of 2007 and this Court confirmed the said order by dismissing the writ appeal on 18.07.2007. Thus, as the issue stands already considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 926 of 2007 on 18.07.2007, we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal fails and hence the same is dismissed. Consequently, M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2012 is closed. No costs.