WP(C) 5210/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH [Katakey, J.] This petition is directed against the order dated 10.09.2010 passed by t he Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, dismissing the Original Appl ication No.238/2010, filed by the petitioner, on the ground of the application b eing beyond the time prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, apart from the ground that the original application is belated and hit by l atches as well as on the ground of seeking multiple reliefs, which is impermissi ble under Rule 10 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The Tribunal has also rejected the challenge made to the communication dated 08.06.2010 as premature as the pe titioner preferred the representation only on 13.07.2010 against the said order and instituted the proceeding on 07.09.2010, without giving any reasonable time to the respondents to take appropriate decision thereon. 2. The petitioner, who was initially inducted in the State Forest Service ( SFS) on 01.11.1980 and successfully completed 2(two) years training in the State Forest Service College on 31.10.1982, was posted as Asstt. Conservator of Fores t on 01.11.1982. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest. Vide notification dated 07.11.2005, issued in exercise of the power con ferred by Rule 8(1) of the IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 (in short the 1966 Rule s) read with Regulation 9(1) of the IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1 966 (herein after referred to as the 1966 Regulation), the petitioner along with 6(six) others were promoted to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) on the basis of the selection pertaining to the select list for the year 2003, though the Select ion Committee meeting was held on 13.06.2005. The petitioner accordingly submitt ed his joining report to the Commissioner to the Govt. of Assam, Forest and Envi ronment Department on 16.11.2005 in the Assam-Meghalaya joint cadre. The year of allotment of the petitioner was then determined by the Govt. of India in the Mi nistry of Environment and Forest vide order dated 28.03.2006, in terms of the pr ovisions of Rule 3(3)(ii) of the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1997 (in short the 1997 Rules), taking the completed years of service re ndered in SFS, as on 31.12.2002, as 20 years and thereby giving weightage of 6(s ix) years in terms of the seniority regulation and accordingly the year of allot ment was assigned as 1997. 3. Another SFS Officer, who was promoted to the IFS along with the petition er, namely, Mamat Kalita and selected against the select list of the year 2004, i.e. after the petitioner, assigned 1997 as the year of allotment, filed a proce eding before the Tribunal being O.A. No.258/2008 praying for antedating his year of allotment to 1996. The said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 22.05.2009 directing the State Government to expedite the matter of antedating the year of allotment in favour of the said applicant to 1996 and to put the matter before the Govt. of India with a further direction to issue consequential order. The sa id direction was issued on the basis of the submission that the State Government has taken a pragmatic view during pendency of the case, in favour of the applic ant, to give the year of allotment in IFS as 1996 as well as on the basis of the communication dated 01.02.2007 issued by the Govt. of India to the Govt. of Ass am in Forest and Environment Department to treat his year of allotment as 1996 i nstead of 1997 as proposed earlier. The Govt. of India in the Ministry of Enviro nment & Forest, thereafter, vide order dated 29.07.2009 assigned the year of all otment to said Mamat Kalita and another SFS Officer, who was promoted to IFS aga inst the select list of 2004, as 1996. The year of allotment of the petitioner w as not antedated, though he was promoted to IFS against the select list of the y ear 2003. The petitioner then filed a representation seeking the assignment of h is year of allotment as 1995. The Govt. of India vide communication dated 08.06. 2010 informed the Govt. of Assam that while computing the length of service for according due weightage in the matter of assignment of the year of allotment, th e period of 2(two) years training required to be undergone under Rule 6(2) of th e Assam Forest Service (Class-I) Rules, 1942 shall not be counted. A representat ion dated 13.07.2010 was again filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner t o the Govt. of Assam, Environment and Forest Department. While the said represen tation was pending the petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.238/2010 ch allenging the aforesaid communication issued by the Govt. of India dated 08.06.2 010, the order dated 28.03.2006 passed by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Enviro nment and Forest assigning the year of allotment of the petitioner as 1997 and a lso to direct the respondents to re-fix his seniority in terms of the provisions of Rule 3(3)(ii) of 1997 Rules read in consonance with Explanation-II of Regula tion 5(2) of the 1966 Regulation, by computing his continuous service w.e.f. 198 0. The said O.A. has been dismissed by the Tribunal as aforesaid. Hence the pres ent petition. 4. I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D . Baruah, learned Central Govt. counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. None appears for the proforma respondents. 5. The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner referring to Explanation II o f Regulation 5(2) of 1966 Regulation has submitted that as the said provision re quires taking into consideration the period of in-service training, while comput ing the period of continuous service, for the purpose of the Regulation, the 2(t wo) years period of in-service training undertaken by a SFS Officer, like the pe titioner, after the appointment, has to be taken into account in computing the p eriod of continuous service for the purpose of determination of the year of allo tment under Rule 3(ii) of the 1997 Rules, which provides for determination of th e year of allotment of a promotee officer with reference to the year in which th e meeting of the Committee to make the selection, to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the service was held and with regard to t he service rendered by him in the SFS, up to 31st day of December of the year im mediately before the year in which the meeting of the Committee was held to prep are the select list, on the basis of which he was appointed to the service. It h as also been submitted that such year of allotment of a promotee has to be deter mined by giving weightage of 1(one) year for every completed 3(three) years of s ervice, subject to minimum of 4(four) years, for the service rendered by him up to 21 years and also by giving weightage of 1(one) year for every completed 2(tw o) years of service beyond the period of 21 years, subject to the maximum of 3(t hree) years. 6. Referring to the order dated 28.03.2006 (Annexure-D) it has also been su bmitted that though the petitioner was selected for promotion to IFS against the year 2003, his completed years of service in SFS was taken as 20 years instead of 22 years, by excluding the period of 2(two) years, during which he underwent in-service training prescribed by the Central Government, thereby giving weighta ge of 6(six) years in the matter of assignment of the year of allotment. It has been submitted that taking into account the date of his joining i.e. 01.11.1980 and also the year of holding the meeting of the Selection Committee i.e. 2005, t he petitioner having completed 24 years of service in SFS as on 31.12.2004, he i s entitled to the weightage of 8(eight) years under Rule 3(ii) of 1997 Rules, fo r the purpose of assignment of the year of allotment. Referring to the order dat ed 29.07.2009 (Annexure-F) it has further been submitted by the learned Sr. coun sel that two other SFS Officers, namely, Shri Mamat Kalita and Shri K.N. Barman (proforma respondent No.5), who were selected against the year 2004 i.e. after t he petitioner’s year of selection (2003), though initially assigned the year of allotment 1997, that is the same year of allotment as assigned to the petitioner , they have subsequently been assigned the year of allotment 1996 by taking into account the in-service training period of 2(two) years, pursuant to the communi cation of the Govt. of India dated 01.02.2007, for which the petitioner having r e-agitated the claim for assignment of the correct year of allotment, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s O.A. before the Tribunal was barred by time, as a fresh cause of action arose after the order dated 29.07.2009 was passed by the G ovt. of India in Ministry of Environment and Forest re-assigning the year of all otment to two SFS Officers junior to the petitioner. Mr. Dutta further submits t hat the communication dated 08.06.2010 issued by the Govt. of India to the Fores t and Environment Department of Govt. of Assam to the effect that the period of 2(two) years training shall not be counted for the purpose of computing the leng th of service for according due weightage, while assigning the year of allotment , being contrary to the provisions of 1966 Regulation and 1997 Rules, the Tribun al ought not to have refused to entertain the O.A. on the ground of being premat ure. The learned Sr. counsel, therefore, submits that while setting aside the or der passed by the Tribunal, the respondents may be directed to assign the year o f allotment to the petitioner 1995. 7. The learned State counsel as well as the learned Central Govt. counsel, on the other hand, have submitted that the period of training, which a SFS Offic er is required to undergo, has to be excluded for the purpose of computing the l ength of service for according due weightage while assigning the year of allotme nt to a SFS Officer. The learned counsel for the respondents further submit that since the 1966 Regulation requires holding of the meeting of the Selection Comm ittee every year and the petitioner was selected for promotion against the vacan cy of 2003, though the Selection Committee meeting was held on 13.06.2005, for t he purpose of determination of the year of allotment of the petitioner the relev ant date would be 31.12.2002 and not 31.12.2004, as claimed by the petitioner an d as such the year of allotment was rightly assigned as 1997. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appear ing parties and also perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal apart fro m the documents made available on the records of the writ proceeding. 9. The petitioner pursuant to his selection and appointment has joined as S FS Officer on 01.11.1980 and thereafter underwent 2(two) years compulsory in-ser vice training as approved by the Govt. of India, which was successfully complete d on 01.11.1982. The Selection Committee for selecting the SFS Officer for promo tion to IFS though was required to meet every year, as required under the 1966 R egulation, however, did not meet for consideration of the Officers for promotion for the year 2003. The Selection Committee meeting was held on 13.06.2005 for c onsideration for promotion of SFS Officer to IFS for 2(two) years together, name ly, 2003 and 2004. The petitioner along with other SFS Officers including Shri M amat Kalita and Shri K.N. Barman were considered for promotion by the Selection Committee in the said meeting. While the petitioner was promoted to IFS vide not ification dated 14.11.2005 against the select list pertaining to the year 2003, Shri Mamat Kalita and Shri K.N. Barman were promoted against the vacancies in th e year 2004. 10. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, pursuant to the selection of the petitioner as well as the aforesaid two Officers assigned the y ear of allotment 1997. Thereafter, Shri Mamat Kalita filed O.A. No.258/2006 befo re the Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal for antedating the year of allotment to 19 95. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.05.2009, based on the communication dated 0 1.02.2007 issued by the Govt. of India to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in Environment and Forest Department, which stipulates assignment of the year of allotment to Shri Mamat Kalita as 1996, directed the State Gover nment to expedite antedating of the year of allotment to 1996 and accordingly th e Govt. of India vide order dated 29.07.2009 antedated the year of allotment of said Shri Mamat Kalita along with another SFS Officer, namely, Shri K.N. Barman to 1996 from 1997 initially assigned, taking into account the completed years of service rendered by them in SFS as on 31.12.2003, they being promoted to IFS ag ainst the select list of the year 2004. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the re presentation seeking antedating his year of allotment to 1995 based on the provi sions of 1966 Regulation and 1997 Rules and also on the basis of the year of all otment assigned to the aforesaid two Officers, who were selected pertaining to t he select list of the year 2004. The Govt. of India in the Ministry of Environme nt and Forest, in the meantime, vide communication dated 08.06.2010 informed the Govt. of Assam that the period of 2(two) years training cannot be counted for t he purpose of computing the length of service for according due weightage while assigning the year of allotment. Another representation, thereafter, was filed b y the petitioner on 13.07.2010. The petitioner then approached the Tribunal in O .A. No.238/2010 on 07.09.2010. 11. The 1997 Rules provides the manner of assignment of the year of allotmen t of an Officer appointed to IFS, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion. The said Rule also provides for fixation of inter se seniority of the Officers. The assignments of the year of allotment as well as fixation of the inter se se niority, therefore, have to be in terms of the provisions contained in the said Rules. Rule 3 of the said Rule provides the manner of assignment of the year of allotment. Rule 3(3)(ii) provides that the year of allotment of a promotee Offic er shall be determined with reference to the year in which the meeting of the Co mmittee to make selection, to prepare the select list on the basis of which he w as appointed to the service, was held and with regard to the continuous service rendered by him in the SFS up to the 31st day of December of the year immediatel y before the year in which the meeting of the Committee to make selection was he ld to prepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the serv ice, in the following manner:- (a) for the service rendered by him up to twenty-one years, he shall be give n a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service, subject to a minimum of four years; (b) he shall also be given a weightage of one year for every completed two y ears of service beyond the period of twenty-one years, referred to in sub-clause (a), subject to a maximum of three years. The proviso to sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 stipulates that the Office rs shall not be assigned a year of allotment earlier than the year of allotment assigned to an Officer senior to him in that select list or appointed to the ser vice on the basis of an earlier select list. 12. Rule 4 of the said Rule provides that the inter se seniority of the Offi cers appointed to the service shall be determined in the following manner:- (i) direct recruit officers shall be ranked inter se in the order of merit a s determined in accordance with Rule 10 of the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Rules, 1954; (ii) promotee officers shall be ranked inter se in the order of their dates o f appointment to the Service. The proviso to the said Rule, however, stipulates that if the ap pointment of more than one officer is on the same date, their inter se seniority shall be in the order in which their names are arranged in the select list on t he date of appointment to the service. 13. Regulation 5 of 1966 Regulation requires holding of the meeting of the S election Committee ordinarily every year for the purpose of preparation of a lis t of suitable SFS Officers for promotion to IFS. The 3rd proviso to sub-Regulati on (2) of Regulation 5 stipulates that the Selection Committee shall not conside r the case of a member of the SFS unless, on the 1st of January of the year in w hich it meets, he is substantive in the SFS and has completed not less than 8(ei ght) years of continuous service, whether officiating or substantive. Explanatio n II lays down how the continuous service is to be computed for the purpose of 1 966 Regulation. It provides that the training in a diploma course in the Forest Research Institute and Colleges, Dehradun; or such other training as may be appr oved by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission in any other institution undertaken by an officer, shall be taken into consideration while co mputing the period of service. 14. As noticed above, the Selection Committee in its meeting dated 13.06.200 5 considered the SFS Officers for promotion against the vacancies occurred in th e years 2003 and 2004 separately, as for selection of SFS Officer for promotion pertaining to the year 2003, the Selection Committee did not meet in the year 20 04. The petitioner was selected against the year 2003 and accordingly promoted. Rule 3(3)(ii) of the 1997 Rules requires assignment of the year of allotment in the manner provided therein after giving due weightage for the service rendered by the SFF Officer. As discussed above, proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of 199 7 Rules stipulates that the Officers shall not be assigned a year of allotment e arlier than the year of allotment assigned to an Officer senior to him in that s elect list or appointed to the service on the basis of an earlier select list. A fter the appointment of the petitioner the year of allotment was assigned as 199 7. Two other SFS officers, namely, Mamat Kalita and Shri K.N. Barman, who were s elected against the vacancies occurred in the year 2004, though initially was as signed the year of allotment 1997, the same, however, was antedated to 1996. The petitioner having been appointed to IFS on the basis of his selection against t he vacancy occurred in the year 2003, as against the aforesaid SFS Officers, who were selected against the vacancies of the year 2004, the respondents have to r econsider the case of the petitioner for reassignment of the year of allotment i n view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of 1997 Rules, as has been discussed above. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of di recting the respondents to reconsider assignment of the year of allotment to the petitioner, which shall be done within a period of 2(two) months from today. 16. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.