Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 310 (GAU)

Gaurish Ranjan Paul v. Union of India

2010-05-04

A.C.UPADHYAY, R.S.GARG

body2010
JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned Asstt. S.G. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 and Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for Respondent-State of Tripura. 2. The Petitioner Gaurish Ranjan Paul, being aggrieved by the proceedings/order of promotion dated 19.10.1994, promoting the private Respondents, namely, Chandramani Debbarma and Subhendu Sekhar Das, by Original Application No. 240 of 1994, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, submitting, inter alia, that the promotion of the private Respondents illegally made and was causing hardship to the present Petitioner. It was contended that the private Respondents were junior to the Petitioner and they were, in fact, not qualified for consideration for their appointment by promotion under the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1996 read with Regulations, 1966, amended from time to time. Though the said application No. 240 of 1994 was contested by the parties, but, however, by the order dated 17.12.1998, the Tribunal allowed the petition with the permission in favour of the Petitioner to make his representation before the appropriate Government with a further direction to the appropriate Government to decide the representation in accordance with law. 3. In accordance with the liberty reserved in favour of the present Petitioner, he submitted his representation but, however, the said representation was rejected on 14.10.1999. Thereafter, the Petitioner again filed Original Application No. 193 of 2000, which came to be rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench on 16.08.2001 and, thereafter, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition. It would, however, be necessary to note that during pendency of the Original Application, the applicant was promoted vide order dated 10.03.1997 and subsequently, his promotion was proponed to 18.03.1996. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, after taking us through paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order passed by the Tribunal, submitted that the Tribunal disposed of the matter in a very casual, curlier and perfunctory manner without even appreciating that the Petitioner made number of allegations against the Respondent Nos. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, after taking us through paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order passed by the Tribunal, submitted that the Tribunal disposed of the matter in a very casual, curlier and perfunctory manner without even appreciating that the Petitioner made number of allegations against the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and also contended that they were not qualified for consideration, the learned Tribunal without looking into Rule 5 of 1966, Regulations, could not dismiss the claim of the Petitioner simply on the ground that as the State-Government had forwarded the names the arguments raised by the Petitioner could be accepted. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that perusal of Rule 5 of 1966 Regulations, would make it clear that each committee is required to meet at intervals not exceeding one year and prepare a list of such members of the State Forest Service, as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the service. His submission is that the State Government could only forward the names of the suitable candidates but the duty was cast upon the Committee to prepare a list after considering the credentials and testimonials including the qualification of the candidates. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondents who were possessed with the complete records, for the reasons best known to them, did not produce the records before the Tribunal, but started relying upon the recommendations made by the State Government, which only have the recommendatory value and nothing beyond that. The last submission is that in view of the allegations against the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, they were required to open their wallet and were required to show to the Court that what precious materials they had with them. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-Union of India, taking an exception to the said arguments, submitted that a list of 13 persons was forwarded by the State-Government and relying upon the said list, so also after considering the merits, the Committee formulated under 1966 Regulations, recommended the names and accordingly directed their promotion. His submission is that the learned Tribunal was absolutely justified in dismissing the said Original Application. 6. The learned Addl. Govt. His submission is that the learned Tribunal was absolutely justified in dismissing the said Original Application. 6. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate spearing for the Respondent-State of Tripura, supporting the stand taken by the Central Government, also submitted that the Petitioner was required and obliged to produce the records before the Tribunal to prove his case that the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were not qualified or were wrongly included in the list. On query by the Court, it was, however, conceded by the learned Counsel for the State that the records pertaining to the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, are in possession of the State-Government. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, under the protection of the Union of India and the State Government, however, submitted that if the Petitioners failed in (sic). 8. We have heard the parties at length and have also perused the records. 9. From perusal of paragraph-3 of the impugned order, it would clearly appear that the argument of the Petitioner before the Tribunal was that the private Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were not meeting the eligibility criteria The arguments were that, in accordance with the 1966 Regulations, a person who does not have 8 years experience in the forestry could not be considered for his appointment by promotion. The further argument was that the Respondent No. 5 was on deputation with the TTAADC for a long period and if that was so, it was for the Respondent No. 5 or the State Government or the Union of India to prove before the Tribunal that despite his deputation he was still engaged in the forestry or was a part of the Forest Department. Unfortunately, these arguments raised by the Petitioner were not taken into their true perspective and were rejected by the Tribunal holding that the concerned State forwarded the names of those persons as eligible candidates and, therefore, the selection committee assessed the suitability on the basis of the material on record. 10. In our opinion, the recommendations made by the State Government had recommendatory value and those were not final for all practical purpose. The Union of India or the Committee constituted under 1966 Regulations is always obliged to look into the recommendations and look into the true facts as no finality is attached to the recommendations made by the State Government 11. The Union of India or the Committee constituted under 1966 Regulations is always obliged to look into the recommendations and look into the true facts as no finality is attached to the recommendations made by the State Government 11. From paragraph-4 of the judgment of the Tribunal, it nowhere appears that it had applied its mind to the arguments or has considered the facts of the case. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the totality of the circumstances and to the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be allowed to stand, the order deserves to be set aside and is accordingly quashed. The petition is allowed. 12. However, instead of entering into the factual dispute, we propose to remand back the matter to the Tribunal for re-consideration on merit. The Petitioner herein is directed to produce a copy of this order before the Tribunal, enabling the Tribunal to consider whether the private Respondents were meeting the requirements under the Law/Regulations. We also direct the Respondent-State of Tripura to produce the entire Service Records of the private Respondents before the Tribunal so that the Tribunal is in a position to consider the facts afresh. The private Respondents, however, would also be entitled to produce their say before the Tribunal to show that they possessed the requisite qualifications and their appointment by promotion was not bad or illegal. 13. The parties present before the High Court, shall appear before the Tribunal on 7th June, 2010. 14. The Petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the Tribunal, enabling it to know as to what it is required to do. Within two weeks' from the appearance of the parties, the concerned parties shall produce the relevant records and/or relevant pleadings/affidavits etc. Within two months' therefrom, the Tribunal shall finally dispose of the matter by taking into consideration the law contained in 1966 Regulations and also keeping into consideration the observations made by us. There shall be no order as to cost. Petition allowed.