Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers ...

3. The appellant, at the relevant time when he approached the Tribunal, was holding the post of Assistant Mill Manager (hereinafter referred to as "AMM" for short) in the Forest Department of Andaman. The Service Profile of the appellant is as under:

When the petitioner was appointed initially, he was part of the Forest Department of Andaman & Nicobar Islands governed by Andaman Forest Department (Class I & Class II Gazetted Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1963 (hereafter referred to as "the 1963 Rules") which were amended on 3.8.1973. Both these Rules provide for the recruitment and promotion to the posts of Chief Conservator of Forests, Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Assistant Mill Manager, Senior Assistant Engineer and others. The claim of the appellant, as it originally stood, was that in terms of the aforementioned Rules, he deserved to be promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as "DCF" for short). The basis of this claim was that his post of AMM was equivalent in Grade-II to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the "ACF" for short) which was a feeder post for the promotion to the post of DCF. His further case was that as per the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 [hereafter referred to as the "IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966] dated 17.11.1965 he was entitled to be promoted to the post of DCF on the basis of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as the "IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966].

5. On the basis of these Rules, it was contended by the appellant before the Tribunal that particularly after the amendment in 1973 the post of AMM became equivalent to that of ACF. The 1963 Rules as well as 1973 Rules were still in vogue and, therefore, there was a channel for promotion to the post of DCF from the post of ACF as was originally provided and now from the post of an equivalent grade. Since the 1973 the post of AMM became equivalent to the post of ACF and, therefore, he was also bound to be considered for promotion to the post of DCF as per the 1963 Rules as amended in 1973. The appellant also relied upon the Gradation Lists from which the appellant sought to read the equivalence of his post to the post of ACF.

6. In his Original Application, the appellant also mentioned the new Recruitment Rules, viz., Andaman & Nicobar Forest Service Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "1991 Rules") issued on 25.7.1991 constituting a central service to be known as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Forest Service with two grades, namely, Time Scale and Selection Grade. The selection grade was put under Central Civil Grade A and the Time Scale in Central Civil Grade B. According to these Rules all the ACFs working in the Andaman and Nicobar Forest Service were to be placed in either of the above two grades. These Rules excluded all other State Forest Service Grade B officers except ACF. He complained against the position that for constitution of the new service the cases of only ACFs were to be submitted to UPSC excluding all other grades under Andaman & Nicobar Forest Service Grade B Officers. He claimed that he made the representations to this effect, but the same was rejected. On these contentions he finally claimed that he was eligible firstly according to the Recruitment Rules of 1963/1973 for promotion to the grade of DCF and was also eligible for inclusion in the list of officers of the Andaman Forest Service for appointment on promotion to the post of DCF specified in Schedule of Rule 5 of IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966.

24. It was suggested lastly by Shri Rao that till now no domicile of the Andaman & Nicobar Island has been considered for promotion to IFS and if the appellant succeeds, he would be the first said person. We cannot entertain this sentimental argument as indeed the appellant cannot be viewed as belonging to the Forest Service.

26. Under the circumstances, for the reasons shown above, we are of the clear opinion that the appeals have no merits and must be dismissed. It is accordingly ordered to be dismissed. We, however, pass no order as to costs.