Case: UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST Vs. TRILOK S. BHANDARI &amp; ORS

the appointments made on the recommendations of the review selection committee by notifications dated 8th July, 2005 and 4th/5th October, 2005 was never a subject matter of challenge and the judgment on which the reliance was placed of this Court was dealing with the appointments and selections made of the officers in the Indian Administrative Service and while holding that clubbing of vacancies was not permissible and being in contravention to Regulation 5 of Regulations 1955, the order came to be passed in exercise of power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for adjustment of the officers against the future vacancies, was of no assistance and the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting such omnibus relief which was in clear violation of the Regulations 1966. 14. Mr. Ravindra Raizada, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of UP submits that the officers who could not be selected on the recommendations of the review selection committee in the year 2005 or against the subsequent year vacancies have no right to continue to be a member of the IFS cadre but they were allowed to continue because of the interim order passed by this Court in the instant appeal preferred at the instance of the appellant Union of India and mere continuance in the cadre of IFS under the interim order of this Court would not confer any right to claim relief, more so, when the recommendations made by the review selection committee was never a subject matter of challenge. 15. As observed, the 1st respondent Trilok S. Bhandari stood retired from service on 30 th November, 1996 and other officers who were impleaded in the instant appeal, as informed to this Court, were appointed in the IFS cadre against the vacancies of subsequent years and the only officer who was left out was respondent no. 13 who could not be selected even in the subsequent year vacancy and finally retired in September, 2013 and this fact is not disputed that he was allowed to continue in the IFS cadre because of the interim order passed by this Court directing the parties to maintain status quo in the meantime by an order dated 12th November, 2007. 16. Ms. Rekha Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 13 submits that he was allowed to continue in the IFS cadre and finally retired from service while holding the post as an IFS officer, at the same time, his pension and other emoluments have also been computed on the last pay drawn in the IFS cadre. In the given circumstances, learned counsel submits that there is no dispute so far as factual matrix is concerned, as he has throughout worked in IFS cadre and retired from service, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, his service conditions may be protected as he has been paid his retiral benefits and getting his provisional pension as an IFS Officer. 17. We have called upon Mr. Ravindra Raizada, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of UP to take instructions that if this officer would not have been allowed to continue in the IFS cadre and allowed in the cadre of State Forest Service, what benefits he was entitled for when he finally retired in September 2013. 18. Learned counsel on instructions fairly submits that he was in the grade pay of Rs. 6600 as officer in the IFS cadre but if he would have been allowed to continue as State Forest Officer in 1996, he would have been in the grade pay of Rs. 5400 but the officer junior to him in the State cadre(State Forest Service), in the interregnum period, was promoted as Deputy Director in the grade pay of Rs. 6600 in the year 1997. There was further Assured Career Progression Scheme for the state officers on completion of 10 years (Rs.6600), 6 years (Rs.7600) and 10 years (Rs.8700). If this Officer would have been continued to be a member of the State Forest Service, and his junior being promoted in the year 1997 in the grade pay of Rs. 6600, at least he would have been entitled for promotion and also for assured career progression scheme in future. 19. It is not disputed that respondent no. 13 who could not be appointed on the recommendations of the review selection committee in the year 2005 and also for the subsequent year vacancies in the IFS cadre but as a member of the State Forest Service, his pay scale at least could not have been detrimental to his interest as what being paid to him as an IFS officer. It cannot be denied that respondent no. 13 who could not be appointed against the subsequent year vacancies has no right to continue and the fact is that the officer has not challenged the appointments made on the recommendations of the review selection committee or the recommendations made by the selection committee against the vacancies of subsequent years. At the same time, this fact cannot be ignored that he was allowed to continue till he attained superannuation in September 2013 as a de-facto IFS officer because of the interim order passed by this Court. 20. After we have heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in law for the reason that in the absence of the recommendations made by the review selection committee pursuant to which the appointments were made by notifications dated 8 th July, 2005 and 4th/5th October, 2005, being challenged, there was no justification for the High Court to pass such omnibus directions more particularly when the officer on whose insistence the writ petition was filed, stood retired from service in November 1996 on attaining the age of superannuation and the judgment in Union of India and Others(supra) on which the Division Bench blindly placed reliance, in our considered view, has no application in the facts of the instant case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]19. It is not disputed that respondent no. 13 who could not be appointed on the recommendations of the review selection committee in the year 2005 and also for the subsequent year vacancies in the IFS cadre but as a member of the State Forest Service, his pay scale at least could not have been detrimental to his interest as what being paid to him as an IFS officer. It cannot be denied that respondent no. 13 who could not be appointed against the subsequent year vacancies has no right to continue and the fact is that the officer has not challenged the appointments made on the recommendations of the review selection committee or the recommendations made by the selection committee against the vacancies of subsequent years. At the same time, this fact cannot be ignored that he was allowed to continue till he attained superannuation in September 2013 as a de-facto IFS officer because of the interim order passed by this Court.20. After we have heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in law for the reason that in the absence of the recommendations made by the review selection committee pursuant to which the appointments were made by notifications dated 8 th July, 2005 and 4th/5th October, 2005, being challenged, there was no justification for the High Court to pass such omnibus directions more particularly when the officer on whose insistence the writ petition was filed, stood retired from service in November 1996 on attaining the age of superannuation and the judgment in Union of India and Others(supra) on which the Division Bench blindly placed reliance, in our considered view, has no application in the facts of the instant case.