1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 289 of 2000 Date of decision: 10.9.2008 Balbir Singh …Petitioner Vs Union of India & others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India along with Mr. Ashish Kumar, Assistant, UPSC, New Delhi. For respondent No.3. Mr. P.K Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. Per Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Writ petitioner has sought judicial review of the order dated 19.11.1999 of learned Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby his OA No. 765/HP/1998, which he filed against the respondents seeking a direction to them to induct him into Indian Forest Service with effect from 26.11.1986, the date his juniors Sh. M.P. Singh and Sh. R.P. Jaiswal were so 1 Whether the reports of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?. 2 inducted, has been dismissed, by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India 2. Relevant facts lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner Balbir Singh was appointed to Himachal Pradesh Forest Service on 1.4.1967. He completed 8 years service in the year 1974 and became eligible for induction into Indian Forest Service. First Departmental Promotion Committee met for induction of Himachal Pradesh Forest Service Officers into Indian Forest Service in March, 1986. At that time there were 32 vacancies in Indian Forest Service, to be filled by promotion of Himachal Pradesh Forest Service Officers. Petitioner’s name figured at serial No.4 among 26 Officers, whose cases were referred to the Departmental Promotion Committee. Along with him, names of three more Officers, i.e. M.P. Singh, C.R. Premi and R. P. Jaiswal, were also sent to Departmental Promotion Committee. Their names figured at numbers 7, 8 and 9 in the seniority of the officers referred for consideration for induction into Indian Forest Service. Petitioner and the above named three officers were at that time facing some vigilance inquiries and departmental proceedings and, therefore, integrity certificates were not issued in their favour. The Departmental Promotion Committee found all the four officers unfit for promotion and 3 against the names of each of them, recorded, under the column pertaining to assessment of merit, the words “integrity certificate withheld-unfit”. So far as other officers were concerned, the Committee recorded the assessment of their merit in terms of “good” or “very good”. Lateron, petitioner and two of the above named three other officers, namely, M.P. Singh and R.P. Jaiswal, were cleared of vigilance cases, having been acquitted by the criminal court and were also exonerated of charges framed, during the departmental proceedings. They filed Original Applications for issuance of integrity certificates and their induction into Indian Forest Service on the basis of Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings conducted in the meeting held on 22nd March, 1986. It appears that the petitioner filed an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal because at that time he was a member of State service. State Administrative Tribunal ordered the issuance of integrity certificate. On the basis of integrity certificate in his favour, petitioner was inducted to Indian Forest Service from 1995, though his prayer was that he be inducted from 1986. He then filed an Original Application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, because by that time he had been inducted ( w.e.f. 1995 to Indian Forest Service and thus 4 became a member of I.F.S ). He took the plea that he had not been inducted into Indian Forest Service from 1986 only because of the pendency of vigilance matter and departmental proceedings and that he having been declared innocent both in criminal proceedings as also departmental proceedings, was entitled to be inducted into Indian Forest Service, from 1986 itself. Respondents took the plea before the Central Administrative Tribunal that in the year 1986, petitioner was found unfit for promotion, on the basis of assessment of his merit and record and that it was for the first time in the year 1988 that he was found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee, but was not ordered to be inducted to the Indian Forest Service, because of pendency of vigilance matters and departmental proceedings at that time. In view of this stand taken by the respondents, the Tribunal, vide impugned judgment has directed the respondents to induct the petitioner to Indian Forest Service from the year 1988. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, because his prayer for induction into the Indian Forest Service from 1986 has not been allowed. His contention is that when his two juniors, i.e. M.P. Singh and R.P. Jaiswal, whose induction to the aforesaid Indian Forest Service had also been withheld on account of pendency of 5 vigilance matters and departmental proceedings had been subsequently inducted into the said service from 1986, there could have been no reason for his being not inducted into the said service from 1986, particularly when he happened to be senior to both of them in the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service. 4. In reply to the writ petition, respondents have taken the same stand, viz the petitioner was not found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee which met in the year 1986 so he is not entitled to be inducted into Indian Forest Service from the year 1986. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. We also sent for the record of the Departmental Promotion Committee which met in the year 1986. From the record, particularly the minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, we find that there were four officers of H.P. Forest Service, including the petitioner, other three being M.P. Singh, R.P. Jaiswal and C.R. Premi, who had been facing vigilance inquiries and departmental proceedings at the relevant time, and because of that integrity certificates had not been issued in their favour. As already noticed, in the column pertaining to assessment of their merit remarks recorded were “integrity certificate withheld-unfit”. 6 6. As regards other officers of Himachal Pradesh Forest Service, who were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, under the column assessment, words like “very good” or “good” were written. That means merit of the petitioner and three other officers named above, was not assessed, but they were remarked to be unfit on account of integrity certificate having been withheld. Two of the three officers, namely, M.P. Singh and R.P. Jaiswal also filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal and in their case orders were passed for review of minutes of Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held in the year 1986. Consequently, minutes of the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee, for the aforesaid year were reviewed and M.P. Singh was assessed “very good” while R.P. Jaiswal was assessed “good” and both of them were recommended for induction into Indian Forest Service and acting on that recommendation, Union of India inducted them to Indian Forest Service from the year 1986. In the case of the present writ petitioner, however, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal did not direct the review of minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held in the year 1986 and believed the version of respondents that he was found unfit. As already noticed, petitioner was found 7 unfit in the same way as M.P. Singh and R.P. Jaiswal were. But lateron when Departmental Promotion Committee reviewed the matter, they were assessed “ very good” and “good”, respectively and recommended to be inducted to Indian Forest Service, from the year 1986 and on the basis of that recommendation were inducted to the said service from the said year. 7. From the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, it appears that perhaps the petitioner did not bring it to the notice of the Tribunal that two other officers, namely, M.P. Singh and R.P. Jaiswal situated similarly to him had also filed Original Applications and in their cases review of 1986 Department Promotion Committee proceedings had been directed and on review they were inducted to Indian Forest Service from 1986. The aforesaid facts about review of proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee in the case of M.P Singh and R.P. Jaiswal are borne out from the original record, which has been produced today before us by Union Public Service Commission, i.e. respondent No.2. 8. In view of the above stated position, we are of the considered view that the order of Central Administrative Tribunal requires to be modified to the extent that review of 8 the minutes of Department al Promotion Committee meeting held on 22.3.1986 should be undertaken, so as to assess the merit of the petitioner in the same manner, as was done in the case of M.P. Singh and R.P. Jaiswal and in case found fit , he should also be inducted to Indian Forest Service from the year 1986 with all incidental benefits in the same manner as has been done in the case of M.P. Singh and R.P. Jaiswal. Writ petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. With the disposal of main writ petition, pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 10th Sept, 2008 (sl)