Indu B. Srivastava, Bangalore v. Avani Kumar Varma
2011-07-01
H.S.KEMPANNA, K.L.MANJUNATH
body2011
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner herein is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in O.A.No.59/10 Dt.27.5.2011 wherein the Tribunal on the Application filed by the 1st Respondent-Avani Kumar Varma has set aside the selection of the petitioner to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Karnataka and directed the selection authority to redo the selection in accordance with law. 2. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder: The petition is an IFS Officer of 1975 batch. His appointment was confirmed in the cadre of IFS on 1.3.1978 and was appointed to Senior scale on 18.2.1980, to the Selection Grade on 1.4.1988 and to the super time scale on 31.5.1993. The 1st Respondent-Avani Kumar Varma was appointed to the cadre of Indian Forest Service by the Union Public Service Commission on 1.3.1974. His appointment was confirmed on 1.3.1978. He was appointed to Senior scale on 18.2.1980 to the Selection Grade on 1.4.1987 and to the Super Time Scale on 4.11.1991. In the list published by the State of Karnataka his seniority is found at Sl.No.2 and the petitioner is found at Sl.No.3. 3. There were 4 posts of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and these 4 posts were being held based on 4 senior officers of equal rank. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest post was held by one R.M.Ray. He retired on 28.2.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. On his retirement, the 1st Respondent was posted as PCCF. The post of the respondent as PCCF was challenged by one Dr.P.J.Dilip Kumar by approaching the Hon. Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.269/07.The above application came to be disposed of directing the State of Karnataka to reconsider the interse seniority and redo the exercise. 4. The State of Karnataka after considering the grievance of P.G.Dilip Kumar on his representation held the 1st Respondent-Avani Kumar Varma was senior to Dilip Kumar, the petitioner and one Nagaraja and by order dt.19.11.2007 the State of Karnataka rejected the representation of Dr. P.J.Dilip Kumar dt.25.8.2007 confirming the order of the competent authority to the post of PCCF. 5.
4. The State of Karnataka after considering the grievance of P.G.Dilip Kumar on his representation held the 1st Respondent-Avani Kumar Varma was senior to Dilip Kumar, the petitioner and one Nagaraja and by order dt.19.11.2007 the State of Karnataka rejected the representation of Dr. P.J.Dilip Kumar dt.25.8.2007 confirming the order of the competent authority to the post of PCCF. 5. Thereafter for the first time as per the notification dt.27th September 2008, the Union of India by exercising its powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Al India Services Act 1951, created the post known as Head of Forest Force in each State cadre on a Apex scale ofRs.80,000/- and the said post is required to be filled up by selection. The aforesaid amended rule clearly shows how the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the Apex Scale (Head of the Forest Force) has to be selected and the relevant Rules are extracted hereunder: 3 (1) Pay Bands and Grade Pays-The pay bands and grade pays admissible to a member of the Service and the dates with effect from which the said pay bands and grade pays shall be deemed to have come into force, shall be as follows: A. Junior Scale; Pay Band-3: Rs.15600-39100 plus Grade Pay Rs.5400 B. Senior Scale- (I) Senior Time Scale-Pay Band-3 15600-39100 plus grade pay Rs.6600; (II) Junior Administrative Grade- Pay Band-3: Rs.15600-39100 plus Grade Pay 7600; (III) Selection Grade:- C. Super Time Scale: Pay Band-4: Rs.37400-67000; plus Grade Pay Rs.8700; (I) Conservator of Forests of Forests-Pay Band-4: Rs.37400-67000; plus Grade Pay Rs.8900; (II) Chief Conservator of Forests/Regional Chief Conservator of Forests-Pay Band-4: Rs.37400-67000, plus Grade Pay Rs.10000; D. ABOVE SUPER TIME SCALE- (I) Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest- Pay Band-4; Rs.37400-67000; plus Grad Pay Rs.12000; (II) HAG + Rs.75,500 (annual increment at 3%)-80000; Grade Pay nil (III) Apex Scale: Rs.80000 (fixed) Grade Pay: nil (by upgradation of one existing post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest as head of Forest force in the each State cadre); (with effect from the date of issue of notification of the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Amendment Rules, 2008); Note 1: Appointment of a member of the Service in the Senior Time Scale and above shall be regulated as per the provisions in the Guidelines regarding promotion to various grades in the Indian Forest Service.
Provided that a member of the Service shall be eligible for appointment to the Senior Time Scale on his completion of four years of service, subject to the provisions of sub-rule 2 of rule 6A of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, to the Junior Administrative Grade on completion of nine years of service, to the Selection Grade on completion of thirteen years of service, to the Conservator of Forests Super Time Scale on completion of fourteen years of service and to the Chief conservator of Forests Super Time Scale on completion of eighteen years of service. Provided further that a member of the service shall be appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade only after he has completed phase III mandatory Mid Carrier Training as specified by the Central Government. Note 2: The post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the apex scale shall be filled by selection from amongst the officers holding the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the State cadre in the HAG-scale of Rs.75500 (annual increment @ 3%)-80000. 6. Based on the above amended rule from among the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, who were in the scale of pay of HAG + 75000 (Annual Increment at 3%) Rs.80,000/- were required to be filled by way of selection. In this regard note-2 of sub-rule(1) of Rule 3 reads as hereunder: “Note 2: The post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the apex scale shall be filled by selection from amongst the officers holding the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the State cadre in the HAG-scale of Rs.75500-(annual increment @ 3%)-80000.” 7. The post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the Apex Scale shall be filed by selection from amongst the officers holding the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the said cadre in the HAG scale of Rs.75,000/- (Annual increment at 3%)-Rs.80,000/-. 8. Though the head of the Forest Force was required to be filled up by way of selection, after Sub rule (1) of Rule 3 was substituted, the State of Karnataka for the reasons best known to it did not select the person to head the Forest Department. However, the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was upgraded to the Apex Scale as per Govt.
However, the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was upgraded to the Apex Scale as per Govt. Order dt.10.2.2009 as per Annexure-A8 which reads as hereunder: “GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.DPAR 04 SEP 2008 BANGALORE DATED 10.12.2009 In pursuance of the letter dated 27.9.2008 of the Government of India read at Sl.No.2 above, and under rule 3(I)(D)(III) of IFS (PAY) 2nd Amendment Rules, 2008, vide Government of India Notification read at Sl.No.1 above the existing IFS cadre post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka, Bangalore in the “Above Super Time Scale (HAG+) of Rs.75,500/- (Annual Increment at 3%) – Rs.80,000/- (fixed), Grade Pay-Nil” is upgraded and designated as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Karnataka, Bangalore in the “Above Super Time Apex Scale of Rs.80,000/- (fixed) Grade Pay Nil. W.e.f. 27.9.2008 i.e. date of issue of Notification of IFS (Pay) Amendment Rules, 2008. The incumbent who occupies the said post will be entitled to draw the apex scale of Rs.80,000 (fixed) Grade Pay Nil as he/she occupies the said post. The post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) Karnataka, Bangalore in the Apex scale shall be filled by selection from amongst the IFS officers holding the post of PCCF in the State Cadre in the “Above Super Time Scale (HAG+) Rs.75,000/- (annual increment of 3%)-80,000/- Grade Pay Nil” as per Note 2 below rule 3(1)(D) of IFS Pay 2nd Amendment Rules, 2008. 9. When this order was issued S. Nagaraja who was Junior to the petitioner as well as the 1st Respondent was holding the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and without there being a selection process he was allowed to continue as head of Forest Force in the Apex time scale of Rs.80,000/-. The 1st Respondent who was senior to Nagaraja gave representation as per Annexure-A9 dt.19.2.2009, Annexure-A 10 dt.8.4.2009. But his requests were not considered. However, Nagaraja was allowed to continue as head of the Forest Force of the State of Karnataka and he retired from the service after attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.1.2010. On account of superannuation of Nagaraja, the post of the head of the Forest Force was required to be filled up by way of selection as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules 2008. 10.
On account of superannuation of Nagaraja, the post of the head of the Forest Force was required to be filled up by way of selection as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules 2008. 10. The State of Karnataka for the purpose of selection formulated the Committee by its order dt.12th May 2009 as per Annexure A12. The Chief Secretary to the Govt. was made as Chairperson, Principal Secretary to Government FEE Department of the State, PCCF (Apex Scale) Karnataka State and one PCCF in the Apex Scale nominated by Ministry of Environment and Forests were made as members of the Selection committee. The said Selection committee considering the records of petitioner, 1st Respondent and C.S.Vedanth selected the petitioner. Thereafter as per the notification dt.29.1.2010 the petitioner was posted as Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of Forest Force) Karnataka, w.e.f. 30.1.2010. The order of selection of the petitioner dt.29.1.2010 was questioned by the 1st Respondent by filing an application in O.A.No.59/10 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore raising several grounds. 11. According to the 1st Respondent the selection of the petitioner herein was bad in law for the following reasons: The constitution of the Special Selection Committee constituting Nagaraja as one of the Members of the Selection Committee was bad in law since he was biased and that he was junior to the 1st Respondent and his posting as Head of the Forest Force was questioned by the 1st Respondent by giving two representations as stated supra. As he was not selected to the said post he could not have been considered as Head of the Forest Force and he could not have been made as a member of the Selection Committee. He further contended that even if Nagaraja has been made as a Member of the Selection Committee he should not have participated in the proceedings as the 1st Respondent had given a representation to select the eligible candidate and post the person to head the Forest Department. It was also contended that contrary to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Forest Service Rules, the selection has been made and it was also contended that the seniority of the 1st Respondent has been over looked when the records of the petitioner as well as the 1st Respondent in the selection grade as PCCF were equal ignoring sub-rule (2) of Rule 3.
Therefore, he requested the Tribunal to set aside the selection of the petitioner herein. 12. The petitioner who was Respondent has filed a detailed counter. The State of Karnataka also filed a detailed counter before the Tribunal. It was contended by them that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and selection of the petitioner cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal as it is beyond the powers of the Tribunal to set aside the selection by substituting its views. It was also contended that when the appointment of Nagaraja as Head of the Forest Force was not questioned and when he was holding the said post as per the guidelines of the Union of India he was included as Member of the Selection Committee and that the inclusion of Nagaraja as member of the Selection committee cannot be found fault with. It was also contended that mere participation of Nagaraja cannot be held that he was biased against the Respondent as no malafides are alleged against Nagaraja and Nagaraja was not made as a party. Behind the back of Nagaraja Respondent-1 cannot contend that selection is based on account of bias Nagaraja is having against the 1st Respondent. It was also contended that the Selection Committee has not considered any other records other than the 5 years ACRs and considering the interse merits of the candidates, selection is made and accordingly requested the Tribunal to reject the case of the 1st Respondent. 13. The Tribunal having heard the learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion though Nagaraja was not made as a party he was biased towards the 1st Respondent and that the Selection Committee has also looked into the records other than the ACRs of 5 years and found that the method of selection of the petitioner to the post was not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Union of India and the Forest Service Rules. Accordingly it has set aside the selection of the petitioner to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) and directed the State of Karnataka to redo the selection for the post of PCCF by constituting a State Selection Committee with 3 members since the post of PCCF of the State is vacant and till the said exercise is completed the Respondents were directed to make officiating arrangement on the basis of seniority.
This order is called in question by the petitioner. 14. We have heard Sri. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Madhusudan R. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 4 to 6. Since respondents 2 and 3 are only formal parties, notice to them is dispensed with. 15. According to Sri. Nanjunda Reddy, the tribunal has committed a serious error in setting aside the selection of the petitioner without considering various rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to him, the tribunal has no authority to substitute its views in case of selection and even though there is no lacuna in the selection process, the tribunal has erroneously set aside the order of selection of the petitioner and therefore, he requests the court to re-consider the entire matter exercising powers of this court under Section 227 of the Constitution of India and reverse the findings of the tribunal. According to him, the posting of Nagaraj as Head of the Forest Force was not questioned either by the 1st respondent or by any other officers who are seniors to Nagaraj and in view of the upgrading of the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and HOFF, as he was drawing the pay-scale attached to the said post on account of the upgradation of the post, the person who was holding the said post would automatically entitled to be posted to head the Forest Force. Since Nagaraj was heading the Institution as Head of the Forest Force, as per the guidelines of the Union of India, Nagaraj was rightly included as one of the member of the selection committee and that the respondent No.1 having not challenged the inclusion of Nagaraj as one of the members of the selection committee, he cannot be permitted to contend that inclusion of Nagaraj in the committee is bad in law. He further contends that when Nagaraj was holding the post of HOFF, by virtue of his post, he was bound to be in the selection committee and as a member of the selection committee he has participated and selected the meritorious candidate and merely because he had participated in the proceedings of the selection, tribunal could not have found fault with the process of selection. 16.
16. He further contends, the 1st respondent could not have made allegations of bias against Nagaraj without making him as one of the parties to the proceedings and giving an opportunity for him to defend the allegations made by respondent No.1 against him. 17. He further contends that as the method of selection has been stated in the amended rules as per Note No.2, the tribunal was not justified in holding that, in view of Rule 3(2) (i) of the Indian Forest Service Rules, 2007, the seniority of respondent No.1 has not been considered. He further submits, as per the guidelines of the Union of India, the selection to the post in question was purely based on outstanding merit, competence, absolute integrity and having specific suitability in the post and considering these parameters, the selection committee has rightly selected the petitioner and therefore, the question of interference does not arise. 18. The learned Advocate General, supporting the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel submitted that, the order of tribunal setting aside the selection of the petitioner is incorrect. According to him, the selection made by the committee is in accordance with the parameters issued by the Union of India and as per Rule 3 of the Indian Forest Service Rules, 2007. Therefore, he requests the court to allow the petition, set aside the order passed by the tribunal and dismiss the application filed by the first respondent. 19. Per contra, Sri. Madhusudan R. Nail, learned Senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that, the grounds urged by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the submission made by the learned Advocate General holds no water. According to him, at the first instance the posting of Nagaraj as Head of the Forest Force in the selection grade in the Apex Scale of `80,000/- on account of the upgradation of the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is bad in law since the post of Chief Conservator of Forests & HOFF, in Apex Scale shall be by way of selection from among eligible candidates as per Rule 3 of the Indian Forest Service Rules, 2007. He further submits that, before upgradation of the post, respondent No.1 was holding the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and his posting was questioned by Dr. P.J. Dilip Kumar by filling an application before the tribunal.
He further submits that, before upgradation of the post, respondent No.1 was holding the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and his posting was questioned by Dr. P.J. Dilip Kumar by filling an application before the tribunal. The tribunal had passed an order directing Dilip Kumar to approach the State Government by giving a representation and based on such representation it was held by the Government that the 1st respondent was senior not only to Dr. P.J. Dilip Kumar but also to the petitioner and Nagaraj who was later posted as Head of the Forest Force contrary to the rules. Relying upon the order of the Government dated 19.11.2007 he submits that the request made by Dr. P.J. Dilip Kumar to appoint him as PCCF was rejected by the Government holding that respondent No.1 had merit in all relevant aspects above Dilip Kumar, petitioner-Indu B. Srivastava and Nagaraj and therefore, it cannot be contended by the learned Advocate General that the petitioner was more meritorious than the 1st respondent. 20. He further contends that, as per Annexure A8 only post of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests was upgraded in the Apex Scale to head the Forest Force in the State. Merely because the post is upgraded, the person who was holding the said post cannot be construed to have been selected to the said post because the said post has to be occupied by way of selection not by way of upgradation as per Rule 3 of the Indian Forest Service Rules, 2007. 21. He further contends that, when Nagaraj was holding the post of Head of the Forest Force without any selection and as required under the law, he could not be posted as member of the selection committee since the 1st respondent had given several representations to the State Government in regard to the manner in which Nagaraj was permitted to continue as Head of the Forest Force and time and again respondent No.1 was requesting to consider his case on merits. The State of Karnataka despite his representation, allowed Nagaraj to continue in the said post till he retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. When Nagaraj was not appointed to the said post by way of selection, he could not be a member of the selection committee as he was not the selected candidate. 22.
The State of Karnataka despite his representation, allowed Nagaraj to continue in the said post till he retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. When Nagaraj was not appointed to the said post by way of selection, he could not be a member of the selection committee as he was not the selected candidate. 22. He further contends, the selection committee without following Rule 3 of the Indian Forest Service Rules, 2007 has acted beyond the scope of the Rules, has examined the records pertaining to the petitioner and the 1st respondent and ACRs right from the day of their appointment even though they were required to consider the ACRs for the last five years. He further submits that in paragraph 11 of the statement of objections filed by the State Government before the tribunal it was the specific contention of the State that said selection committee has considered the ACRs, for the last five years and did not consider the ACRs of the lower cadre but the said submission is contrary to the records maintained by the Government. By taking us through para 11, he requested us to look into the records and find out whether the selection of the petitioner was based on a consideration of ACRs for the last five years or not. He further contends, as per Rule 3 (2)(I) of the Indian Forest Service Rules, 2007, appointment to the selection grade and to posts carrying pay above this grade in the Indian Forest Service shall be made by selection on merit, as per the criteria that may be prescribed by the Central Government with due regard to seniority. Without considering this rule when the petitioner and the 1st respondent were equally meritorious, the 1st respondent being the senior most officer his seniority should have been taken into account while selecting the person to the post of HOFF. In these circumstances, he requests the court to dismiss the petition. 23. At this stage, it would be relevant for us to note that the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent have cited many decisions of the Apex Court in regard to the power of the tribunal or the court in interfering with the selection to a particular post. According to Sri.
According to Sri. Nanjunda Reddy, the tribunal did not have any scope to interfere with the selection as the tribunal or the court cannot substitute its view without such a power. Discretionary power is vested in the Tribunal only if the selection Committee has acted with malafide intention without following the guide lines. He further contends that, on account of the setting aside the selection of the petitioner, the tribunal has committed a serious error in not following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgments. 24. Per contra, Sri. Madhusudan R. Naik, contending that, though the courts cannot interfere with the selection, but if the selection made by the committee is contrary to the guidelines and the rules of selection, the court or the tribunal has ample power to set aside the selection and in directing the parties to redo the exercise following the guidelines issued by the Union of India. 25. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us in this petition is, “whether the tribunal has committed an error which calls for our interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?” 26. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, it is not in dispute that the scope of interference by the tribunal or by the court in the matter of selection is remote. This court also is of the opinion, a court or tribunal cannot lightly interfere with the method of selection by substituting its view. But it is not in dispute, if the process of selection itself is bad in law, the tribunal or the court have ample power to issue proper directions to the selection committee to follow the guidelines or rules if any error is committed to select and appoint a proper person following the rules and guidelines. Therefore, we are of the view, there is no necessity for us to refer to various rulings relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the 1st respondent since we are only finding whether the tribunal has set aside the order of the petitioner on the ground of not following the guidelines or the rules in the matter of selection by the selection committee or not. 27.
27. In this background, we have to consider whether the procedure adopted to form the selection committee by the government is in accordance with the rules and whether inclusion of Nagaraj as one of the members of the Committee has violated the norms and whether the participation of Mr. Nagaraj in the selection process vitiates the selection or not and in addition to that, we have to consider whether the committee has acted in error in selecting the petitioner without following the rules or not and we are also required to consider whether the selection committee has traversed beyond the guidelines issued by the Union of India in the matter of selection with the prevailing rules. If the selection committee has violated the guidelines and the rules and if such selection process is bad in law, this court can interfere with the same. 28. In order to find out whether the selection committee has followed the guidelines issued by the Union of India and the Rules, we had directed the learned Government Advocate to secure the records pertaining to the process of selection. Accordingly, the same is made available to us. 29. It is not in dispute that for the first time, the post of PCCF was upgraded to the Apex Scale as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and HOFF as per amended Rule 3(2)(I) of the Indian Forest Service Rules, 2007. The said notification was issued by the State of Karnataka upgrading the post of PCCF to the post of Head of Forest Force on 10.02.2009. The post alone is upgraded. The person who was holding the post cannot be upgraded because the post of Head of the Forest Force has to be filled by way of selection. Note 2 of the amended sub-rule (I) of Rule 3 reads as hereunder: Note 2: The post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the apex scale shall be filled by selection from amongst the officers holding the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the State cadre in the HAG-scale of Rs.75500-(annual increment @ 3%)-Rs.80000. From the above note it is clear, how the post of PCCF (HOFF) has to filled and who were all the eligible officers for the purpose of consideration. 30.
From the above note it is clear, how the post of PCCF (HOFF) has to filled and who were all the eligible officers for the purpose of consideration. 30. Admittedly, when Nagaraj was allowed to work as head of the Forest Force, Dilip Kumar, petitioner, 1st respondent and Nagaraj were in the zone of consideration and amongst 4, the respondent No.1 was senior and he was considered to be more meritorious as per the Government Order dated 19.11.2007. When the posting of the 1st respondent as the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests was questioned by Dr. P.J. Dilip Kumar, as on 19.11.2007, the respondent No.1 was found to be more meritorious and senior-most. The post of the Head of the Forest Force was upgraded on 10.02.2009. 31. The learned Advocate General has fairly submitted Nagaraj was not selected by the Government and he was not posted as Head of the Forest Force in Karnataka by selection. From this it is clear, though Nagaraj was junior to the 1st respondent and even though the petitioner, 1st respondent, Dilip Kumar and Nagaraj were under the zone of consideration, without going through the process of selection, Nagaraj was allowed to continue as the Head of the Forest Force. Merely because he was allowed to continue to hold the post it cannot be held that Nagaraj was selected and appointed as head of the Forest Force. Accordingly, we hold Nagaraj who retired after attaining the age of superannuation as head of the Forest Force was not duly selected and appointed as HOFF. Then the question would be, how the said post has to be filed up and what are the guidelines issued by the Union of India and what were the rules prevailing for consideration of eligible candidates. The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India by its letter dated 16.04.2009 has issued guidelines for selection to the posts of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force in Apex Scale of Indian Forest Service which is as under: “Guidelines for selection to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) in Apex Scale of Indian Forest Service.
Eligibility of Officers Following officers would be in the zone of consideration for the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Apex Scale) i) officers holding the post of PCCF in the state cadre in the HAG+SCALE of Rs 75,000-Rs 80,000/-. Constitution of Selection Committee The special Selection Committee shall comprise of the following: 1) Chief Secretary of the State connected as Chairperson. 2) Principal Secretary (Forests) of the state. 3) PCCF (Apex Scale) of the State cadre concerned. 4) One PCCF in the Apex Scale nominated by MOEF. Parameter of Selection Outstanding merit competence absolute integrity and having specific suitability for the post.” The unamended Rule 3(2)(I) of the Indian Forest Services Rules, 2007 reads as hereunder: “Appointment to the selection grade and to posts carrying pay above this grade in the Indian Forest Services shall be made by selection on merit, as per the criteria that may be prescribed by the Central Government, with due regard to seniority”. 32. A perusal of the guidelines of the Union of India dated 16.04.2009 and Rule 3(2)(I) of the Indian Forest Service Rules, 2007, it is clear, the manner in which the post of the head of the Forest Force under the State has to be filled up. Now as per the guidelines, there shall be four persons in the selection committee, one of them shall be the PCCF (Apex Scale) of the state cadre concerned. But, in the Instant case, Nagaraj was not selected and posted as PCCF in the Apex Scale. Merely because he was holding the said post, he could not have been made as a member of the selection committee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the inclusion of Nagaraj as one of the selection committee member is bad in law that too in the background of the 1st respondent requesting the State to consider his seniority and select him to the post of PCCF (Apex Scale) which was held by Nagaraj not by way of selection in accordance with the guidelines. But he was allowed to participate in the proceedings. In the guidelines parameters for selection is also given. According to the guidelines, the selection committee is required to consider the outstanding merit, competence, absolute integrity and having specific suitability for the post. The State of Karnataka in the objection statement filed, in paragraph 11 has stated as hereunder: “11.
But he was allowed to participate in the proceedings. In the guidelines parameters for selection is also given. According to the guidelines, the selection committee is required to consider the outstanding merit, competence, absolute integrity and having specific suitability for the post. The State of Karnataka in the objection statement filed, in paragraph 11 has stated as hereunder: “11. It is submitted that the Special Selection Committee considered the ACRs for the last five years. Therefore, the averment that the Committee compared the ACRs of lower cadres is denied as false and baseless.” 33. As per his paragraph, it is the case of the Government that the special selection committee has considered ACRS, for the last five years and did not compare the ACRs, of the lower cadres as contended by the 1st respondent. In order to find out whether the parameters of selection as per the guidelines of the Government and Rule 3(2)(I) of the Rules are followed or not, we have also perused the proceedings of the selection committee. The special selection committee in the meeting held on 23.01.2010 at about 5.30 has considered inter-se merits of the four candidates namely, P.J. Dilip Kumar, Avani Kumar Varma, Indu B. Srivastava and Sri. C.S. Vedant. Since Dilip Kumar had expressed that his case shall not be considered, only case of the petitioner, 1st respondent and C.S. Vedant were considered. After considering the records, at the end, it is stated as hereunder: “The committee also went through ACRS, of three officers observed last five gradings given by different PCCFs, the committee also went through the list of posts held by these officers in their entire service so far after taking all relevant factors into consideration the committee assessed suitability of each officers and placed them in the following preferential order: The petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1, 1st respondent at Sl.No.2, and C.S. Vedant at Sl.No.3” 34. From the proceedings of the selection committee meeting, it is clear, the committee not only has considered the ACRs of last five years but also considered the entire services of the officers right from the date of their appointment. The learned Advocate General submits that the committee has only considered the post held by these officers and not the ACRs, from the inception of their appointment.
The learned Advocate General submits that the committee has only considered the post held by these officers and not the ACRs, from the inception of their appointment. When the rules and guidelines prescribe what are the criteria for selection whether the committee was required to consider the post held by each officers from the day of their appointment. They being government servants, whenever the government transferred any particular officers, he is bound to work in the post where he is posted. Therefore, the selection committee has committed a serious error in considering the post held by each of the officers and such an observation of the committee is bad in law and is unheard of. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the committee has committed a serious error in not selecting the candidates based on the merits of five years ACRs and taking into consideration the list of posts held by the officers in the entire services so far. Therefore, we are of the opinion the tribunal on considering these facts has come to the conclusion that the process of selection is bad in law and has issued a direction to redo the exercise in accordance with the guidelines and rules prescribed, this court cannot find any error in the orders of the tribunal. 35. In the result, we do not see any merits in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.