!N. 6) c^tsJ/'^;s/b> ^^^Q@3@aS2!^SE53S@?^@ST.: ^-— ^TL^- m4 ^toTi srs-^e? ^st^T.^rrrat'i* '==qTqTf£»»?rT^cr^rj^o^o %VTTO ^idT TFIT^ ^. 3iTi <$4_^OS3-//^:$> 59 ^|,^m- ^Tgm *^r •W,^FT f^^T^t qT^TT3^T, 3hTTP:? iO^ ^Tqci^ qto'SrTO-yR^?!^', cTg?fN-- ^T^^'f^'IT-^t^TllKOpj ,•.,,<«•JT^) // 1^S£// i" ^tnpi rf^ qster,^ t^^pr Tio^ormFT,^^^ ^an, s^cm-T^o^o^ - " 2" ^TOT^ sps ?m^> flrt^r ^T |m <y^r^-,qto3TTO- ^T^I^-, fTSiftd-yFmwp" 1^?T-^Tr?|flo9'o^ 5- ^teT-i ^ ifedTfE^TTt Kgter T^W ^^r^mvr^jt ^N^ ^im^T, qtosrro-'mm^' fuOT-^^^^O^O^ • •^T^n' 3lT^r 9TT fciq^uT C-78 ^TFF^T^^TT^ ^ccr^TPTI^T, tPTTl^i-'Ko, Rrtl1<-iy< \^.p.(?.)^-^n>^^^*f ^20 CT^^rcFTR^jcb ^TT3T1^5T^^icb 3TT^?T q^P (^c|i^6|t£;) §^iT^R^ri:^3TI^5T SB: Hon'bte Shri Manindra 1 <pi<4lc')<TITi <ii+icl)T^r(^ld xf^i^i^ ^arf^TOT^^T in Shrivastava. J. 08-024010 Shri Praftjll Bharat, counsef forthe petjttoner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel l|awyer for the State/responctents. Heard. The petitioner has filed tl|iis petttton aggrieved on account of his supercession and non-promotion |:o the post of Forester over arri afc^ve his junior. The facts necessary for a|djudicatbn of controverey in the petition are that the petitioner was '^ itially appointed as Forest Guard on 14-11-1966 in North Bastar For^st Division, whfch has been placed on rword as Annexure A-3. Aasordgng to the petttioner, he was continuing in service without any adverse renrjiark or any departmental enquiry on the allegation of misconduct. Vide or^er dated 01-06-1993 (Annexure A-1), one Ghasiram, Forest Guard was proijnoted as Forester. Shri Ghasiram is junlor tothe (^tittoner as reflected from|gradation list (Annexure A-4) v^erein the petittoner has been placed at S.pMo.39 wheree®Shri Ghasjram has been placed at S.No.231. Being aggri^ved, representattons were made by the petitbner and finally vkJe orde| dated 30-09-1995, the ^tittoner was promoted to the post of Forest^r. However, the sakJ order whteh was ser^ed upon the petitioner on 22-p 1-1995 did not confer promotton from the date when his junior-Ghasiram v4s promoted. Wrth the said grievance. this petition came to be filed by the p^titioner. ,^^^ ja.^C-78 mq^r ^*rr^ ^wT^TRTTc^, tp-alti-Ko, R«i1tiy<< ..VJJ.&i^..!l^3/'.^^ ^20 w^^TOTf^rra? ^7T3H^5Tfh^ict» 3TT^?T q5PP (^cli^dtgi) ^R?T8^^f^T3n^^T .—^ tNe (N<ln aslthe Learned counsel for contained in M.P. Class III Rules, 1967, contended that service as Forest Guard on thel his juniors, he was discriminat^d has not been promotedwhere| order dated 01-06-1993 (Annexitre record ofthe petitioner was any adverse remark nor was| against him nor he was ever v|s» though criteria for promotion due regard to the seniority, junior Ghasiram was found to petitbner. Referring to the prov|! Schedule-IV appended to the| Servfce Recruitment Rutes, committed illegality in not upon representatton made, granted him promotion vkle granted seniority and promot|3n promoted. Retum has been Tited opposed only on the ground been stated in the return thatl promoted vide order dated Ojl approach the M.P. State year. Learned State counsel who(ly unblemish. ai|e th^re cpi<iio<nvt +ii+ioV^"i^^i ^Rfli^i^ ^ 3iR|+| 3TT^5T ije petitioner referring to the provisions Ministerial) Forest Sewi(» Recruitment petitioner had compteted 12 years of [date of issuance of order of promotbn of and subj^sted to arbitrary action as he his junior Ghssvam was promoted vide A-1). He further submits that the service |ly unblemish. He was never communcat®j any departmental enquiry ever initiated (sited with any penalty. In his submission, merit and suitability in all respects with is nothing on record to show that his |be more meritorious as ccmpared to the Isions contained in Rules 14, 15 & 16 and M.P. Class III (Non Ministerial) Forest |7, it is submitted that Vne respondents had the petittoner. He lastly submits that respondente consfalered his case and dated 30-09-1995. he ought to be from the date when his junbr was 19^7, prorrloting thb ctrder by|the tHat r^ponctents wherein prayer has been the same is barred by limitatbn. tt has as the person alleged to be junior was 1-06-1993, the petitfoner ought to have Adm|nistrative Tribunal within a period of one fuijther submitted that from the reading of the •^^'^ "s"'"'' Xl-HC-78 "'-...'sy '^•^Ji&^ ^3wT^TTOTc5?T, yal^-'i®,Rom^ V).^ ^.)f^.t^S'/^<_ wicCT^qt^ -"----•--•y---^20 311^91 q^P (^t^S) OT^tT^T Rlicp Cl^TT3r}l^?TflF)^|CT> provision contained in Rule 16 (>f Servtee Recruitment Rules, promotion is merit and suitab( seniority, and therefore, only claim promotion as of rjght promoted. It is further submitte<p to the post of Forester, and from the earlier date. It is impleaded his junior Ghasirar(i therefore, the petttion ateo and on that count alone, the pe( promotion over and above his ]L(n 1^67 onlthe therfefore afeo suflfers commlinicated Cl^ss Qi the averments made ??y any adverse remark was penalty no denial with regard t( respondents in their return. A Schedute-IV of the M.P. Rwruitment Rutes, 1967 woutel considered fbr promotion to comptetion of 3 years after trainihg or after completion of 12 Guard. The criteria for promotio(i on merit and suitabjlity in all chl^fo41<1 ^l^cir^ffe^ xt^ti^ix ^ 3lRl+l 3H^5T ifthe M.P. Class III (Non Ministerial) Forest it woutel be clear that the criteria for lity in all respect with due regard to the basis of seniority, the petitioner cannot >n the ground that his junbr has been that later on, the petitioner was promoted ^fore, the p^ittoner cannot ctaim promotion submitted that the petttbner has not as a respondent in the petJtion, and from non-joinder of necessary parties tjtioner is not entitlKl to clatm senbrity and Ghasiram. jL(nior { have considered the suj^mtesions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records| the petitioner in the petition that neither to him nor he was visited wtth any said averments have been made by the p^rusal ofthe relevant rules 14, 15, 16 and III (Non ^inisterial) Forest Sep/tee fehow that the Forest Guarcl is entitted to be the next higher post of Forester upon finom the Forest Guards Tralning School of servfoe in case of untrained Forest shov^ that the promotjon shall be based respects with due r^ard to seniority. .^5^,. / '^ '^\ I ^ttJlft^ 3|-HC-22 ^, % -^s^ 37T^T^T f^N'^sn^T 5b^ii<=b <ifia T ~3^r ^ii<4tcrt<ll, ^n1^^<5, IG<<ni^li< ^ni!?r 'CRT^? .^:.i'^l^..:.\^s^ '"f^ 200^ HWW{ $h^|cb "^F^8T' jifnjor The scheme of promotbn contemplatejd that where junior is found more However, from the retum fited by the| averment made to this effect that his jifrii meritoriousand suitable in all respects) L^med State counsel submits| before the Tribunal while filing their| retum only on the ground of limitatiw not be filed. 1 am unabie to acce(rt original application has filed befor^ 12-11-1996. It was therefore obligatoij submit their reply to the petitjon on aU under the Rul^ clearly envisag^d n|ieritorious, he may be promoted. I r^pondents, 1 do not find that any Ghasiram was foiuxl to be more |as compared to the petitioner. |that as the petrtbn was initiaHy filed retum, respondents confined their ^nd therefore, a detailed retum couU submissbn fty the reason that the the Tribunal was admitted on i(y on the part of the respondents to [isp^ts thfe The petitioner was superced^l promoted vkle order dated 01-06-19p3 representation was made by the promot^i vide order dated 30-09-19^. filed before the Tribunal on 24-09-19915. inclined to hokl that the petition suffers) 3-1905 -19915. As the resirondents have ncri| petitbner's junior Ghasiram was fc|und therefore, he was promoted, 1 am teftj the petttbner's su^rcesston was not Consequently, the petttton is a| to consfcler the case of the petitjo|nier provisions contained in Rute 16 read CM^f<n<fli 'HFT^f ^ fe^t <F3i^« ^'3Tf;OT3TT^T by his junior Qiasiram who was 9p3. ^ggnwed by the su(»rces8ion, p^titioner whereupon he was finaUy >. The instant petition came to be >9P. Inthis vjewofthe matter, 1 am not from delay and laches. Gome out with any plea that the to be more meritorious, arid with no other optton but to hold that accordance with law. |owed. The respondents are direct^j afresh in axordance with the twth Schedute IV ofthe M.P. Oass III [^^fe^ .^^^^ T ^ -^.^llX^HC-22 ^ ^...; Ji^" ^^ T^ll<41d<4, ^Tl1^^<5, [^<yll^y ^...te?....:i,Ly...'r...l^57.200 C^) NIHC'tl^Wc^ 'fN^ST' w^r^r ^icn vsn^r ^4-iich <Mf^a Tumaie .0 7^ ^TT^T ^"CT^R TTftn __ ^ ^ (Non Ministerial) Forest Service Re|crujtment Rules, 1967 and take appropriate decision. If it is found that| meritorious as his junior, he would be| when his junior was promoted. Holwever, as the petitioner has not impleaded his junior Ghasiram as a parjty in the present petition, even if it is found that the petitioner is entitled <br| junior was promotal i.e.01-06-1993, ir| placed just below his junior. Other co| ci>)l^f<n<flr1 iTFT^f ^ "fe^ <F3l^l< ^3?f^R3n^T ttie petitioner was equally or more entitted to promotion from the date prornotion frorn the date when his that case, the petitioner would be is^uential benefits, in case, if the petitbner js found fit for promotion fror|i 01-06-1993, shall foltow. No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude [Tft^ ^fa^t