IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.127 of 2003 Decided on : July 2, 2008 State of H.P. …Petitioner. Versus J.N. Goel and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. B.K. Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) By means of the present writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, State of Himachal Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as writ petitioner, has challenged the order, dated 17.6.2002, passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Transfer Application No.706 of 1986, on the ground that the said order is illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the facts and law. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition may be noticed. Respondent No.1 J.N. Goel was employed as a Ranger in the Forest Department of the writ petitioner. He was senior to respondents No.2 to 7 in the cadre of Rangers. Certain vacancies in the cadre of HPFS-II were available in the year 1974. Respondent No.1, alongwith other eligible Range Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Officers, was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, which held its meeting on 28.5.1974. As a result of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, 33 Range Officers, including respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 to 7, were promoted, vide order dated 28.6.1974, Annexure-C to Annexure PA. On 23.12.1974, Annexure-D to Annexure-PA, final seniority list of HPFS-II cadre Officers was issued. Some officers aggrieved by the seniority list filed writ petitions challenging the order dated 28.6.1974 regarding promotion of 33 Rangers, as also the seniority list dated 23.12.1974. It was claimed in the said writ petitions that the promotions were required to be recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee, on the basis of year-wise vacancies from 1961 onwards. Those writ petitions were decided by the Hon’ble High Court by a common judgment dated 27.10.1977 and order dated 28.6.1974, Annexure-C to Annexure PA, was quashed. Direction was given to the writ petitioner, in its capacity as employer of the respondents, to regularize the services of the Range Officers promoted to HPFS- II cadre, in the ratio of 40% from amongst service people and 60% from amongst direct recruits upto 30.4.1966 and in the ratio of 25% from direct source and 75% from service channel after 30.4.1966, in accordance with the Rules of 1966. 3. In compliance with that judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, vacancies were worked out and minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, held on 28.6.1974, were reviewed. This happened on 20.1.1979. The …3… committee made recommendations, on the basis of which order dated 13.2.1979, Annexure-F to Annexure PA, was issued. After the issuance of this order, dated 13.2.1979, it was noticed that vacancy position had not been correctly worked out and so another meeting was convened on 15.3.1980 and the minutes of the meetings, held on 28.6.1974 and 20.1.1979, were reviewed and 30 Officers were cleared for promotion. Consequently, Notifications dated 29.4.1980, Annexure F-1 & F- 2 to Annexure PA, were issued. Another Notification was issued on the same date and 21 more officials were promoted on regular basis. Name of respondent No.1 did not figure in either of these two orders dated 29.4.1980, even though he was considered for promotion in the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee, held on 28.6.1974, and had also been promoted vide order dated 28.6.1974, Annexure-C to Annexure PA. Consequently, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in this Court on 23.4.1980. That writ petition was transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal in the year 1986. 4. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner issued an order, dated 14.2.1984, Annexure-J, promoting respondent No.1. Therefore, respondent No. 1 amended his writ petition and challenged the order dated 14.2.1984, Annexure-J, on the ground that he ought to have been promoted with retrospective effect by taking into account the year-wise vacancy position from the year 1970 onwards. Respondent No.1 claimed that had the Departmental Promotion Committee worked out the year-wise vacancy position, while considering eligible candidates …4… for promotion in its meeting held in the year 1983, on the basis of which order of his promotion dated 14.2.1984 was issued, he would have been promoted from a date much earlier than 14.2.1984, thus entitling him not only to financial gain, in terms of arrears of salary and allowances, etc., but also resulting in his placement in the seniority list above many officers promoted vide two notifications dated 29.4.1980 and 14.2.1984. 5. The writ petitioner, who was impleaded as respondent in the matter before the State Administrative Tribunal, took the plea that all the vacancies that arose after the year 1970 were taken into account in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 22.12.1983, on the basis of the minutes of which meeting the order dated 14.2.1984 was issued. However, it did not state that year-wise vacancy position from 1970 to 1983 had been worked out and respondent No.1 was appointed against any vacancy occurring in any particular year. This omission on the part of the writ petitioner indicated that year-wise vacancies were not worked out, but all the vacancies, which were available in the year 1983, were taken into account and respondent No.1 was appointed against one of those vacancies, with effect from 22.12.1983 alongwith 41 other Officers. These 41 Officers, who were appointed alongwith respondent No.1 were different from respondents No.2 to 7, who had already been promoted and appointed vide orders of the year 1980. 6. Learned State Administrative Tribunal has allowed the Transfer Application of respondent No.1 and ordered the writ …5… petitioner to review the minutes of the meeting held on 21/22.12.1983, pursuant to which order, Annexure-J, dated 14.2.1984, was issued. The learned Tribunal has, however, not quashed the order dated 14.2.1984, observing that this will disturb the promotion of respondent No.1, because since the issuance of that notification a long period of 18 years had elapsed. Learned Tribunal has directed the writ petitioner to work out year-wise vacancies of HPFS-II cadre Officers from 1970 to 1983 and to give effect to the promotion of respondent No.1, made vide order dated 14.2.1984, Annexure-PJ, from the date of occurrence of vacancy against which he has been appointed by the aforesaid order. The direction is in line with the judgment dated 27.10.1977 of this Court rendered in the earlier two writ petitions. Another direction given to the writ petitioner is to give all consequential benefits to respondent No.1, based on the date of occurrence of vacancy against which he has been appointed. 7. Looking to the background of the case, as noticed, hereinabove, we do not think that the Tribunal has committed any illegality. The order of the Tribunal is based on the judgment of this Court dated 27.10.1977, delivered in earlier writ petitions. Therefore, we see no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition stands disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. July 2, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.