IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.09.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.45236 OF 2006 (O.A.NO.3186 OF 2000) M.Rengan ... Petitioner Versus 1.Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Chennai – 600 015. 2.The Secretary to Government Environment and Forest Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. (R2 - suo motu impleaded vide order dated 08.09.2010 in W.P.No.45236/2006) ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.3186 of 2000 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to direct the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion as Forest Ranger for the year 1999-2000, communicated in Pro.No.B1/73396/98 dated 25.03.2000 of the respondent, in the appropriate place therein, irrespective of the fact that he has not passed the prescribed departmental tests, and consequently promote him as Forest Ranger. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents: Mr.P.Sathish Government Advocate (Forest) O R D E R The petitioner joined service in the Forest Department as Forester in 1974 and he retired from service as Forester on 31.08.2002. The next avenue of promotion for the post of Forester is Forest Ranger. As per the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, a Forester should have passed departmental tests in Forest Law and in Office Procedure and Accounts. The petitioner made 8 attempts. But he was not successful. Though he passed Forest Law in 1992, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ did not pass the test relating to the Office Procedure and Accounts. 2.Furthermore, when the panel of Foresters fit for promotion to the post of Forest Rangers for the year 1996-1997 was issued, he was not included in the panel. His non-inclusion in the panel was based on two grounds. Firstly, a charge memo dated 11.04.1997 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was pending against the petitioner. Secondly, he did not pass the departmental test relating to Office Procedure and Accounts. However, the charges were dropped by the proceedings dated 25.05.1999. He was not included in the panel of Foresters fit for promotion to the post of Forest Rangers for the year 1999-2000, dated 25.03.2000, since he did not pass the departmental test as stated above. 3.In the meantime, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.1120, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 30.10.1984 granting exemption from passing the departmental tests, if the Government employee has crossed 53 years and made five attempts and failed in all the attempts and no disciplinary proceeding was pending against him. 4.Since the disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner, he could not ask for exemption as per the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.1120. However, when the charges were dropped on 25.05.1999, he requested the first respondent to exempt him from passing the departmental tests for including his name in the panel of Foresters fit for promotion to the post of Forest Rangers. 5.Accordingly, the first respondent sent proposal dated 01.07.2000 to the Government seeking exemption for the petitioner from passing the departmental tests, so as to include him in the panel for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger. 6.The Government accepted the proposal and passed an order in G.O.(D)No.351, Environment and Forest Department, dated 23.11.2001 exempting the petitioner from passing the departmental tests. In the G.O., the first respondent was directed to include the petitioner in the next panel of Foresters fit for promotion to the post of Forest Rangers. 7.After the issuance of the aforesaid G.O.(D)No.351, the panel of Foresters fit for promotion to the post of Forest Rangers for the year 2002-2003 was issued after the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2002. Hence, the petitioner was not included in the panel and he was not granted promotion, though the Government granted exemption from passing the departmental tests, so as to grant promotion to the petitioner as Forest Ranger. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.Hence, the petitioner filed the Original Application in O.A.No.3186 of 2000 praying for direction to the first respondent to promote him as Forest Ranger, by including his name in the panel for promotion as Forest Ranger for the year 1999-2000 irrespective of the fact that he has not passed the departmental tests. The first respondent filed reply affidavit. 9.When the petitioner filed the Original Application, the aforesaid G.O.(D) No.351 was not issued. Hence, he made such a prayer in the Original Application. 10.On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.45236 of 2006. 11.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 12.The aforesaid facts make it very clear that the petitioner joined the service as Forester in 1974 and retired from service as Forester in 2002, after rendering 28 years of service. Though the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.1120 gives power to the Government to grant exemption from passing the departmental tests, so as to include the Government employee in the panel for promotion to the highest post, the exemption should not be granted, if disciplinary proceeding was pending against the Government employee. Hence, the petitioner did not seek for exemption as per G.O.Ms.No.1120, as a charge memo dated 11.04.1997 was pending against him, when the panel of Foresters fit for promotion to the post of Forest Rangers for the year 1996-1997 was issued in the proceedings dated 22.12.1997, by the first respondent. But the charges were dropped by the first respondent in the proceedings dated 25.05.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request to the first respondent to seek exemption from the second respondent under G.O.Ms.No.1120. 13.Accordingly, the first respondent sent a proposal dated 01.07.2000 to the second respondent seeking exemption from passing the departmental tests in the case of the petitioner. The second respondent has also issued an order in G.O.(D)No.351, exempting the petitioner from passing the departmental tests. However, in the said G.O., the second respondent directed for inclusion of the petitioner in the next panel of Foresters fit for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger. 14.In the meantime, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2002. In the G.O.(D)No.351 referred to above, the Government directed that the petitioner could be included in the next panel. The date of aforesaid G.O.(D) No.351 is 23.11.2001. The next panel was for the year 2002-2003 and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ panel for 2002-2003 was not released before the petitioner retired from service. Hence the petitioner did not get promotion, though he was exempted from passing the departmental tests. As stated above, the petitioner rendered 28 years of service in the post of Forester without any promotion and the only impediment was the disciplinary proceedings that was pending in 1997. However, the same was also dropped by the first respondent. 15.Taking into account the aforesaid fact and also the fact that the petitioner would retire on 31.08.2002, the second respondent ought to have directed the first respondent to include the petitioner in the panel of Foresters fit for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger for the year 1999 – 2000, while issuing G.O. (D)No.351 granting exemption from passing the departmental tests. In fact, since the charge memo was dropped, the Government could have directed the first respondent to include the petitioner in the 1996-1997 panel itself. However, the claim of the petitioner itself is for including him in the panel for the year 1999-2000. Hence the second respondent ought to have directed the first respondent to include him in the panel for the year 1999-2000, instead of directing the first respondent to include in the subsequent panel. 16.At this juncture, it is relevant to state that the Government employees could not suffer without any promotion in their entire career as held by the Honourable Apex Court in STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS VS. K.K. ROY reported in 2004 SCC (L&S) 651. 17.Taking into account those principles, the Government has also issued G.O.Ms.No.1120 granting exemption from passing the departmental tests, if the Government employee has crossed 53 years, for the purpose of giving promotion to such Government employee. 18.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, modifying the G.O.(D) No.351, Environment and Forest Department, dated 23.11.2001 by directing the first respondent to include the petitioner in the panel of Foresters fit for promotion to the post of Forest Rangers for the year 1999-2000. On such inclusion in the panel, the petitioner is entitled to notional promotion and notional benefits, so that the petitioner could get increased terminal benefits. The second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders as directed above, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 19.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- DeputyRegistrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. TK To 1.Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Chennai – 600 015. 2.The Secretary to Government Environment and Forest Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 1 cc to Mr.M. Ravi, Advocate, Sr. 66999 1 cc to Spl. Government Pleader, Sr. 67146 W.P.NO.45236 OF 2006 (O.A.NO.3186 OF 2000) KSJ (CO) kk 17/9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/