Karnataka High Court
Sri.Vikram R N vs State Of Karnataka on 26 May, 2023
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
-1-
WP No. 5453 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 5453 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN
1. SRI.VIKRAM R N
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
Digitally S/O NAGARAJA S.,
signed by RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
YAMUNA K L HONNAVAR RANGE, HONNAVAR,
Location: RESIDING AT VALLABABHAI ROAD,
High Court of WARD No.5, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
Karnataka KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135.
2. SRI.PRABHURAJ PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D/O DR.M.L.PATIL,
RESIDING AT #83/1/67-2, PRAKRUTI,
SRISHAILA MALLIKARJUNA COLONY,
BY PASS ROAD, LINGASUGUR - 584 122
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
SORABA RANGE, SAGARA DIVISION.
3. SRI.ANAND NAIK.B.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O BALACHANDRA L.NAIK,
RESIDING AT SOCIALFORESTRY,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
-2-
WP No. 5453 of 2022
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
4. SRI.GANESH HEGDE,
34 YEARS,
S/O B.G.HEGDE,
RESIDING AT POST GERAL,
YELLAPUR TALUK - 581 359
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
YALLAPUR RANGE,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
5. VIJAYAKUMAR KALAPPANAVAR,
36 YEARS,
S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA,
RESIDING AT PO KAMMUR,
BYADGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
JAMAKHANDI, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587101.
6. SRI. SANTHOSH HUBBALI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O BASAVANNEAPA,
RESIDING AT GROUND FLOOR
No.3024, SECTOR 35, RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
BELAGAVI - 590 015.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
AT KANAKUMBIRANGE, BELGAUM.
7. SMT. DEEPA.C.V.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D/O GOVINDARAJULU,
RESIDING AT No.15, UDAYASMRITHI,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR BHAVAN,
SADASHIVANAGAR, BELAGAVI - 590 001.
WAITING FOR POSTING.
8. SMT.VINEETHA.G.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
-3-
WP No. 5453 of 2022
D/O S.R.GOPAL,
RESIDING AT No.27, NISARGA,
G9 NAIRUTHYA, R.T.NAGARA,
MYSURU - 570 022
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
FOREST TRAINING CENTRE,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
9. SRI.SHELVARAJ R.NAYAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O R.B.NAYAKAR,
RESIDING AT TANDE TAAYI KRUPA,
SIDDARUDH NAGAR, SOLAPUR ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 103.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
CHIKKODI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
10. SRI. NAGARAJ K.BHEEMAGOL,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O KARIYAPPA BHEEMAGOL,
RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS, JAYANAGAR,
NEAR KESARI GARDEN,
SANKESHWAR - 591 313
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER.
11. SRI.ABILASH.C.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
RESIDING AT UNDIGANALU VILLAGE,
ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DIST. PIN 573 201
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR WILDLIFE RANGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR.
12. SMT.TIRTHA.P.A
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O AJAY A.A.,
RESIDING AT KOTTOR VILLAGE,
PONNAMPET, VIRAJPET,
-4-
WP No. 5453 of 2022
KODAGU - 571 216
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
GOVT TIMBER DEPOT, THITHIMATHI,
VIRAJPET DIVISION,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
13. SMT.GANASHREE KV,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O VIJAYAKUMAR,
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
KALUGUNDI UNIT,
RESIDING AT No,.148/1,
KIBETTA VILLAGE, MADIKERI-571201.
14. SRI.KALANDAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O ABBAS,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
WORKING PLAN OFFICE,
CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.
15. SRI.MOHAN V.S.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
D/O SOMANATH GOWDA,
RESIDING AT MARKET ROAD,
GONIBEEDU, PIN 577 132.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
YESLUR RANGE, HASSAN DIVISION.
16. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDY K.M.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O MUNIREDDY.B.,
RESIDING AT KALLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLPUR DISTRICT-562101,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER.
17. SRI.PRAKASH T.R.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O RAMESH T.B.
-5-
WP No. 5453 of 2022
RESIDING AT REDIHALLI,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
JAGALUR RANGE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 231.
18. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR H.M.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O M.M.HIREMATH,
RESIDING AT NILAGOL,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
WORKING PLAN DIVISION BALLARI-562101.
19. SRI. MAHESH NAIK.C.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O CHANDRA NAIK,
RESIDING AT RANGAVVANAHALLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
AJJAMPURA RANGE,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.
20. SRI. SHILPA S.L.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
D/O LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH,
RESIDING AT No.50
GANGANASHILPA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN,
B CROSS, BANGARPET ROAD, KOLAR
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
MANDYA RANGE,
MANDYA - 563 101.
21. SRI. SHANKAR ANTARAGATTI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O GUNDAPPA,
RESIDING AT DURADUNDI POST,
GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT
-6-
WP No. 5453 of 2022
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
SAVADATTI TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590001.
22. SRI. GIRISHA PRAKASHA CHOUGALE
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O PRAKASHA CHOUGALE,
RESIDING AT POST DIGGEWADI,
RAIBAG TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
PIN 591 317
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KALLAHALLA WILDLIFE RANGE,
HUNSUR WILDLIFE DIVISION
23. SRI.RAVIKEERTHI.K.N
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANAPPA K.V.
RESIDING AT
MULABAGILU KOLAR DISTRICT,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
MALUR RANGE,
KOLAR DISTRICT-517247.
24. SRI. MAHESH MARENNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O BALCHANDRA,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BYADAGI RANGE, HAVERI DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT NEAR OM SHANTI,
ASHRAM, SAI NAGAR, MUDHOL TQ:
MUDHOL, PIN 583713
25. SMT. CHAYA.K.B.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O BASAVANTHAPPA.K.
RESIDING AT KUPPAGADDE,
NEAR VIJAYA BANK, SORABA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
-7-
WP No. 5453 of 2022
KARGIL RANGE,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
26. SMT. VANISHREE HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
D/O M.D.HEGDE,
RESIDING AT HOSALLI,
SIRSI - 581 450.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
KAKATHI RANGE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. B O ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND
ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
ROOM No.442, 4TH FLOOR, GATE No.2
MULTI STORIED BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU -560 001.
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FORESTS (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE),
4TH FLOOR, ARANYA BHAVAN,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, FORESTS,
ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-8-
WP No. 5453 of 2022
4. STATE OF KARNTAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
MULTI STORIED BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. SRI.RAVINDRA P.C
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O P.N.CHIKKEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT No.91,
KALABYRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
RAVINDRANAGARA, PWD COLONY,
HASSAN - 573 201.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICR,
O/O DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
TERRITORIAL DIVISION,
HASSAN - 573 201.
6. SRI. GIRISH P.BASKKASADA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O FAKIRAPPA R.S.
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
FOREST MOBILE SQUAD,
HASSAN - 573 201
7. SMT. HIMAVATHI BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O GOUTHAM.N.
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RESEARCH WING, DORESWAMYPALYA,
ARAKERE, MICO LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
8. SRI. GOPALA.A.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE AC AIYAPPA,
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560 082
-9-
WP No. 5453 of 2022
9. SRISHIVRATRESWARA SWAMY S.M.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O S.B.MALLAIAH,
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
KR PURAM RANGE, BENGALURU URBAN,
BENGLAURU.-560001.
10. SRI.MAHADEVA SWAMY.B.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O BASAVAIAH,
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
HALAGURU WILDLIFE RANGE,
HALAGURU, MAVALLI, MANDYA - 571 430.
11. SRI. RAMESH.K.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O KANTHARAJU,
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
KAGGALIPURA SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
BANGALORE URBAN DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560001.
12. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI K.P.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
W/O MEGHARAJ,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
DEVANAHALLI RANGE, DEVANAHALI,
BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU - 562 110
13. SRI. DALESH.A.L.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE LAKSHMANE GOWDA,
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
KANAKAPURA RANGE,
RAMANGARA DISTRICT-562159.
14. SRI. RAVI.C.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHIKKAKEMPEGOWDA,
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
GUBBI RANGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101.
- 10 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
15. SRI.KIRAN KUMAR.A.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O ANJIGOWDA,
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RAMANAGARA RANGE,
RAMANAGARA - 572 117.
16. SRI. CHARAN KUMAR .M.E.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O ERAPPA M.C.
RESIDING AT IBNIVALAVADI,
BOLKERE POST, MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU RANGE,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
17. SRI. GIRISH SANKRI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O SATISH SANKRI,
RESIDING AT C/O R.G.SANKRI,
SAPTAGIRI NILAYA,
NEAR LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
BASAVANAGAR, GOKAK, PIN 591 307
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
SHANKAR RANGE, SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION
18. SRI. SURESH BABU.S.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O SRIRAMA REDDY.B.
RESIDING AT No.114, BEHIND CANARA BANK,
OOLAVADI VILLAGE, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 125
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
SRINIVASAPURA RANGE, KOLAR DISTRICT.
19. SMT. KAVITA IRANATII,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O PRASAD GUDAGANAVAR
- 11 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
RESIDING AT AMAR PRASAD BUILDING,
NEAR GOVERNMENT LADIES HOSTEL,
KURABARDADDI, GOKAK, DIST-BELAGAVI,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RANGE FOREST OFFICE, KHANAPRUR RANGE,
BELGAUM DIVISION-590001.
20. SRI. GAJANAN HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNA HEGDE,
RESIDING AT BHAGEERATHI NILAYA,
SUBHASH NAGAR, MARATHI KOPPA,
SIRSI - 581 402
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RESEARCH RANGE DANDELI,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
21. SMT. PAVITHRA U.J.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D/O SIDDESH N.S.
RESIDING AT ABOVE
PVN LITTLE CHAMPS SCHOOL,
OPP.,DISTRICT, INDUSTRIES CENTRE,
JOGIMATTI MAIN ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
WAITING FOR POSTING.
22. SRI.PRADEEP RATHOD
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O MADHAV,
RESIDING AT 36,
ACHARYA RAVISHEKHAR COLONY,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE, BILAGI,
BAGALKOTE SF DIVISION.
23. SRI ANANYA KUMAR.J.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
D/O DR.N.JAGADISH KOPPA,
- 12 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
RESIDING AT No.313,
SUGNYAN HIG, E BLOCK,
VIJAYANAGARA, 3RD STAGE,
MYSURU - 570 022.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KUSHALNAGAR RANGE,
MADIKERI, KODAGU.
24. SRI SHIVANAND MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O VEERABHADRA,
RESIDING AT FOREST COMPOUND,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
BELAGAVI TERRITORIAL RANGE BELAGAVI.
25. SMT.GAYATRI LOKANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
D/O BALU,
RESIDING AT PLOT No.1130,
KHB COLONY, BASAVAN KUDCHI,
BELAGAVI - 591 124
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BELAGAVI RANGE BELAGAVI.
26. SRI. CHANDRAKANT HIPPARAGI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O HANAMANT,
RESIDING AT MATTUR,
JAMAKHANDI TALUK, BAGALKOT - 587 119.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BARCHI RANGE, DANDELI,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
27. SRI.HEMAGIRI ANGADI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
RESIDING AT KOLLAPUR,
BISALALLI POST, BYADAGI TALUK,
HAVERI - 581 106.
WAITING FOR POSTING.
- 13 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
28. SRI.MAJL BEERAPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O GANGAPPA,
RESIDING AT AND WORKING AS
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
LINGASUGUR,
RAICHUR DISTRICT- 584 122.
29. SRI. PRADEEP PAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O SHANKARAPPA,
RESIDING AT MARUDI TANDA,
MUNDARGI - 582 118
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
KOPPAT HILLS RANGE, GADAG.
30. SRI. MADHUSUDANAM.K.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O KADAPPA,
RESIDING AT BAIRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
No.28, 15TH CROSS, EARANAPALYA,
VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 091
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
SAMPAJE TERRITORAIL RANGE, KODAGU.
31. SMT.TEJASHREE PURUSHOTAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O KALANDAR,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
WORKING PLAN OFICE, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577201.
32. SMT.CHAITRA M.S.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
D/O SHIVANNA,
RESIDING AT No.684/23D-8,
12TH CROSS, VISHWANATH EXTN.,
CHANNAPATNA - 562 160.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
WAITING FOR POSTING.
- 14 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
33. SRI. BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY,
RESIDING AT No.10 RADIO PARK,
COL BAZAR, BALLARY- 583 104
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
WAITING FOR POSTING.
34. SRI. KIRAN ANGADI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
D/O PRABHULINGAPPA,
SHIVASHAKTI NAGAR,
KELAGERI, GOA ROAD, DHARWAD - 580 007
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SAMBRANI RANGE,
HALIYAL DIVISION,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
35. SMT. INDUPRIYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O SAMYADI R JAIN
RESIDING AT No.10, 1ST STAGE,
3RD MAIN, KARNATAKA LAYOUT,
KURUBARALLI, BENGALURU - 560 086.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER ICT,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
36. VARADARANGANATHA.G.H.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA H.S.
RESIDING AT HALLIMALLAPURA,
KEREKATTE POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE - 577 544.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BHATKAL RANGE,
UTTARA KANNADA
37. MAHIM M JANNU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O MANOHAR JANNU,
- 15 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
RESIDING AT 785, SHIVAJI GALLI,
AZAD NAGAR, DANDELI, PIN - 581 325
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
VENOOR RANGE,
KUNDAPURA DIVISION
38. SMT. NIVEDITHA.T.P.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
D/O PARAMESHWARAPPA TL
RESIDING AT ADAGANTI,
POST TADASANAHALLI,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, PIN 577 428
WORKING AS
RANGE FOREST OFFICER ICT CELL,
ARANYA BHAVAN,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
39. SMT. POORNIKA RANI B.J.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O JAGANATH
RESIDING AT NAGASHREE SHOPPING CENTRE,
MG.ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPUR
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BAGEPALLI RANGE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION-562101.
40. SRI. VINAY BHAT
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O GOPAL
RESIDING AT SHIVAPU
JOIDA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA - 581 187
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
DANDELI RANGE,
UTTARA KANNADA.
41. SRI. KIRANA B.M.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O MAHALINGA PATALI B.P.
RESIDING AT PATALIMANE,
BILIYARU DODDADKA HOUSE,
- 16 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
ARANTHODU POST AND VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
HEBBALA RANGE,
SANGAMESHWARA PETE 577 316,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
42. SMT. FARAHNAAZ MANIYAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
D/O IBRAHIM,
RESIDING AT KEREGUNDI ROAD,
SWASTIK BADAVANE,
1ST CROSS, SIRSI - 581 401
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
YELLBURGA RNAGE, KOPPA
43. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA.H.P.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O PALAKSHAPA,
RESIDING AT HONNALI TOWN,
HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
SUBRAMANYA RANGE,
MANGALORE DIVISON-574142.
44. PRAVEEN KUMAR.N.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O NATARAJU.N.
RESIDING AT SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION,
SIRA - 572 137
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
KOPPA RANGE, KOPPA DIVISION.
45. SRI MAHANTESH PETLUR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O RAMACHANDRA PETLUR
RESIDING AT VIDYAGIRI, 7TH CROSS,
HOME No.42, BAGALKOTE - 587 102.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RESEARCH RANGE, BELAGAVI.
- 17 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
46. SRI.TYAGARAJA H.S.
S/O SOMASHEKARACHARI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HONNENAHALLLI,
TIPTUR TALUK, MADENUR PSOT, TUMKUR,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BELATHANGADI RANGE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574145.
47. SMT. ASHA S.KASAREDDY,
D/O SRISHAILA.B.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 1ST AVENUE,
JANAPRIYA APARTMENT, B2,302,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL-562 123
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
48. SRI. SAIYADSAB NADAF,
S/O HUSENSAB NADAF
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AZAD NAGAR, WARD No.5,
SAIYYADD ALI DARGAH MUDHOL,
BAGALKOT - 587 313
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
PG PALYA WILDLIFE RANGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR.
49. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR.A.
S/O ANJANAPPA.H.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KAREHALLIPOST,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA 577 527
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
CHIKKANAYAKAHALLI TERRITORIAL RANGE,
TUMKUR.
- 18 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
50. SRI. NIRANJANA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O RAVI SHETTY,
RESIDING AT YELLANTHUR VILLAGE,
BELVE POST, HEBBRE TALUK,
UDUPI - 576 212
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BALEHONNUR RANGE,
CHIKKAMAGALUR.
51. SRI.LOKESH S.L.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH,
RESIDING AT No.50,
GAGANASHILPA NILAYA,
1ST MAIN, B CROSS, BANGARPETT ROAD,
KOLAR - 563 101
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
GUNDLUPET RANGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR.
52. SRI. ARAVINDA S.L.
36 YEARS,
S/O LOKESH,
RESIDING AT THORANAGATTE POST,
JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577 528
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
HOSANAGARA RANGE,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
53. SMT ROOMAN SHAIKH,
30 YEARS,
D/O ABDUL SHUKUR,
RESIDING AT NEHARU NAGAR,
SIRSI - 581 402
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SIRSI RESEARCH RANGE,
UTTARA KANNADA.
54. SRI. GUNDUSINGH RAAJPUT,
S/O CHATURSINGH,
- 19 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HUDGI POST,
HUMNABAD TALUK, BIDAR - 585 329
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
VANNERGHATTA BIOLOGICAL PARK,
BENGALURU.
55. SRI.SHANTAPPA PUJAR
S/O SHIVAJI PUJAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TADAS CROSS,
RAMANAKOPPA POST - 581 212
KUNDAGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
K GUDI RANGE, MYSURU.
56. SHREEKANT M.PATIL,
S/O MAHADEVAPPAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FOREST QUARTERS,
KALAGHATAGI, DHARWAD - 581 204
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
KALAGATGI RANGE, DHARWAD.
57. SRI. KOTRESHA K.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O RAMAPPA K.
RESIDING AT ULAVATHI POST,
HB HALLI TALUK, BELALRI - 583 212
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RESEARCH RANGE MADIKERI,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
58. SRI. AJAY NAIK,
S/O H.K.NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHREEVANA NAGARA,
FOREST COLONY, CHIPAGI,
SIRSI - 581 402
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KATUR RANGE, UTTARA KANNADA.
- 20 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
59. SMT. NETHRAVATHI.T.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O THIMMAREDDY,
RESIDING AT No.147, BELAKU BUILDING,
4TH CROSS, JYOTHINAGARA,
CHANDRA LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI,
BENGALURU - 560 039
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
INFORMATION COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGY CENTRE,
BENGALURU.
60. SMT. VIDYABHARATHI.B.P
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
D/O PALANETRA,
RESIDING AT NO.65, NAL LAYOUT,
JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 041
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
EVALUATION UNIT,
BENGALURU URBAN.
61. RAJESH GAVAL.A.
S/O APPALAPPA K.M.
38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.158, IN FRONT OF DARGA,
SADASHIVA EXTENSION,
CHIKKABALLPUR MAIN ROAD,
HIREBIDANUR VILLAGE, GAURIBIDANUR,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 208
W/AT RAMPURA WILDLIFE RANGE,
CHOWDALLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA.
62. SRI. VINOD ANGADI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O LAXMAN ANGADI,
RESIDING AT RANGE FOREST OFFICE
WILDLIFE RANGE, GUND, JOIDA TALUK,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
WILDLIFE RANGE GUND,
UTTARA KANNADA-577419.
- 21 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
63. SRI. VARUNKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O VASUDEVAREDDY S.T.
RESIDING AT No.103/1 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PARVATHIPURAM, BASAVANAGUDI,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
HOSAKOTE RANGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560067.
64. SMT. RAJESHWARI NS.,
D/O SHIVRAJ C.M
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.736, D BLOCK,
9TH MAIN BANKERS COLONY,
NEAR KAVITHA BAKERY, JP NAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 008
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
WAITING FOR POSTING.
65. GANGADHARA
AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O UMLA NAIK,
RESIDING AT NAGATHIKATTE THANDA,
POTHALAKATTE POST, HARAPANAHALLI POST,
BALLARI - 57 139
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
THIRTHAHALLI RANGE, SHIVAMOGGA.
66. SRI. ANIL KUMAR .S.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O SREENIVAS,
RESIDING AT VIGNESHWARA NILAYA,
MANAGAR SHRINGERI,
CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 139.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
THIRTHAHALLI RANGE,
SHIVAMOGGA.
67. SMT. ANUSHA BHAT NETRAKERE
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
D/O UDAYSHANKAR NARAYAN BHAT,
- 22 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
RESIDING AT NO. 407, 1ST FLOOR,
7TH CROSS, SRI BALAJI KRUPA LAYOUT,
RK HEGDE NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 077.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU.
68. SMT.PADMASHREE.N
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
D/O NANJAPPA M.,
RESIDING AT NO. 108/2,
SS INLAY MV EXTENSION,
HOSAKOTE 562 114.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR.
69. SMT.YESHMA
AGED 29 YEARS,
D/O POONACHA,
RESIDING AT FOREST QUARTERS,
HALEBIDU ROAD, BELUR
HASSAN 573 121.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
BELUR RANGE, HASSAN.
70. SRI. ADARSHA MP.,
34 YEARS,
S/O PRABHAKARA T,
RESIDING AT ARALASURALI POST,
TIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA-577 414.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
NAGARA RANGE, SHIVAMOGGA.
71. SRI. PRAFUL SHETTY
S/O VISHWANATHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1-1093,
BEERAMELE ROAD, OPP: JK PETROL PUMP,
KEMMINJE, PUTTUR,
DAKSHINA KANNADA 574 202.
- 23 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SHANIVARASANTHE, KODAGU.
72. SMT. SHRUTHI.B.M
27 YEARS,
D/O MALLESH,
RESIDING AT CHANDANAVANA,
11TH WARD, 4TH CROSS,
TOWARDS RANGOLI HALLA,
SALAGAME ROAD, NEAR SARASWATHI TEMPLE,
HASSAN - 573 201.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE, HASSAN
73. SRI. SHIVARAJ MATHAD
29 YEARS,
S/O SHANKARAYYA MATAD,
RESIDING AT CHANNUR,
HOSARITTI POST, HAVERI - 581 213.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SAKREBAIL WILDLIFE RANGE,
SHIVAMOGGA.
74. SRI. RAJESH BALIGAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O RAMAPPA,
RESIDING AT KUPPELUR,
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI 581 115.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
BANTWAL TERRITORIAL RANGE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
75. SMT. DIVYA.R.
AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O RAJANNA M.R.,
RESIDING AT MANASI VILLAGE,
ARALUMALLIGE POST, DODBALLAPUR,
BENGALURU 561 203.
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
WAITING FOR POSTING.
- 24 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
76. SRI. SANJAYAB.S.
AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O SOMASHEKARAPPA B.,
RESIDING AT DEVANGA NEEDING,
BETTADAHALLI VILLAGE, TAREIKERE,
CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 228.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SORABA RANGE, SHIVAMOGGA.
77. SRI.RAJU GONDAKAR,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHIGLI POST,
GADAG 582 210.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
GADAG RANGE, GADAG.
78. SRI. HARIKIRAN BHAT
AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O VENKATARAMAN BHAT,
RESIDING AT SUBRAY KODLU,
CHIPGI, SIRSI 581 402.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
FORESTRY TECHNICAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING CENTRE,
UTTARA KANNADA.
79. SMT. AKSHATHA.T.Y.
D/O YUVARAJ TL.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TUDUR, DODDAMANE,
SHIVAMOGGA 577 226.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY CHITRADURGA RANGE,
CHITRADURGA.
80. SRI. LINGARADDI. R. MANKANI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O RAMESH MANKANI,
RESIDING AT TIRLAPUR, NAVALGUND,
DHARWAD - 582 208.
- 25 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
MUDHOL RANGE, BAGALKOT.
81. SRI PAVAN KURANING
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O LAKAPPA,
RESIDING AT KAPPALAGUDDI,
RAIBAG TALUK, BELAGAVI
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
MUDHOL, BAGALKOT-587101.
82. SRI.SYED MURTAZA KHADRI
S/O AMNEESA WATHAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RANGE FOREST OFFICE
SAI COLONY, OPP. BAIG PETROL PUMP,
BIDAR ROAD, MANIKNAGAR,
HUMNABAD, BIDAR 585 353.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
BASAVAKALYANA RANGE, BIDAR.
83. SRI. VEERESH KALYANI
S/O VITHALRAO KALYANI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT H NO. 1/11,
NANDGAON POST, HUMNABAD TALUK,
BIDAR 585 329.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY AURAD RANGE,
BIDAR.
84. SRI. KAREPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O GURAPPA,
RESIDING AT FOREST QUARTERS
RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
TERRITORIAL RANGE, BHALKI 585 328.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
TERRITORIAL RANGE BHALKI, BIDAR.
- 26 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
85. SMT. SWATHI LOKAPPA
D/O LOKAPPA J.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 172/6/1,
VINAYAKA SAI RESIDENCY,
FLAT NO. 303, 9TH MAIN,
GURAPPANAPALYA MAIN ROAD,
BTM 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU- 560 029.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
TERRITORIAL RANGE,
CHIKKAMAGALUR
86. SRI.MAHANTESH PATIL
S/O NAGINDRAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHITALLI POST,
ALAND TALUK, GULBARGA 585 314.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
WILDLIFE RANGE, ANSHI,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
87. SRI. VINAY JR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O RAJU,
RESIDING AT KANAKA CIRCLE,
BAGUR POST, HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA 577 515.
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
WAITING FOR POSTING.
88. SRI. DILEEP KUMAR
S/O CHANNAKESHAVA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 59, 23RD WARD,
POOJEKOPPALU,
HOLENARSIPURA - 573 211.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SURVEY UNIT, VIRAJPET,
KODAGU.
- 27 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
89. SRI. NAGARJUN.N
S/O NAGARAJAPPA P.T.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
PATHAMUTHAKKAPALLI VILLAGE,
MUTHAKAPALLI POST, SRINIVASAPURA,
KOLAR - 563 138.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
T. NARASIPURA, MYSURU.
90. SRI. MANJUNATHA H.M.,
S/O MUNILAKSHMANA G.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT OPP. WATER TANK,
PARVATHIPURA, HOSAKOTE,
BENGALURU - 562 114.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
PROJECT TIGER HEDIYALA, MYSURU.
91. SRI. KIRANKUMAR G.KARATANGI,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O GURUSIDDAPPA,
RESIDING AT BEERAVALLI POST,
KALGHATGI TALUK, DHARWAD 581 212.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
MUTHODI TERRITORIAL RANGE,
MYSURU.
92. SMT. SREELAKSHMI R.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
CHIKKABALLAPURA RANGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.
93. SRI. PARASHURAMA L.,
S/O LOKESHAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT V. PALYA,
CHITRADURGA - 577 520.
- 28 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
WORKING PLAN, SHIVAMOGGA RANGE,
SHIVAMOGGA.
94. SMT. DHANYASHREE MR.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O RAJU M,
RESIDING AT NO.1148, KT STREET,
CHANNAPATNA 562 160.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
ANEKAL RANGE, BENGALURU
95. SRI. PRASHANTH.H.V.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O VENKATAGIRI GOWDA HT,
RESIDING AT NO. 4498/59/30,
SRIGANDHA NIVAS, 4TH CROSS,
RAJAKEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMNAGAR 562 160.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KODIHALLI WILDLIFE RANGE,
RAMANAGARA.
96. SRI MADHAVA DODDABUDAGI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O NAGESHAPPA,
RESIDING AT BILAGALI, SORAB TALUK,
SHIVAMOOGGA DISTRICT - 577 419.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
AMBLIGOLA RANGE, SHIVAMOGGA
97. SMT. UMA.A,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
D/O ANANDA,
RESIDING AT NALLURE POST HARISHI,
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA 577 429.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
AGUMBE TERRITORIAL RANGE,
SHIVAMOGGA.
- 29 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
98. SMT. BHAGYASHREE MASALI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
D/O RAMAGOND G. MASALI,
RESIDING AT SIDDESHWAR NAGAR,
UNKAL CROSS, HUBLI - 580 031.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SAKALESHPUR RESEARCH RANGE, HASSAN.
99. SMT. USHA RAJU KABBER
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O RAJU,
RESIDING AT TALAGUND,
KORLAKATTA TALUK SIRSI,
UTTARA KANNADA 581 318.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
BANAVASI RANGE, UTTARA KANNADA.
100. SMT.PREETI RAMDAS NAIK
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
D/O RAMDAS NAIK,
RESIDING AT MARUKATTE ROAD,
NEAR KALASANKA, KUMTA 581 343.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KARGAL WILDLIFE RANGE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
101. SMT. BHAVYA NAIK
D/O RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KIBBALLI POST,
URTOTA, SIRSI TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 450
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
NAVAL BASE, UTTARA KANNADA.
102. SRI. BASAVARAJ.M
S/O MALLIKARJUNA M.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KALGHATTA VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE, CHITRADURGA - 577 526.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
VIRNOLI RANGE, UTTARA KANNADA.
- 30 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
103. SRI.MOHAN.S.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O SIDDAGANGIAH B.,
RESIDING AT SIDDESHWARYA NILLAYA,
10TH CROSS, SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION,
TUMAKURU 572 102.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
WORKING PLAN AND SURVEY,
SHIVAMOGGA.
104. SRI.LASHKARNAIK T.CHAVAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O THAKRYANAIK C.,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
NELAMANGALA RANGE,
NELAMANGALA - 562 123.
105. SRI. SURESH ALMEL
S/O BHIMASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MIRAGI, INDI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA 586 217.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
SIDDLAGHAATTA RANGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
106. SRI.SHANMUKHA D.M.
S/O MAHENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FOREST QUARTERS,
ALNUR, MARIGUDI RANGE,
KALKERE, HD KOTE 571 121.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
ALNUR MARIGUNDI RANGE,
MYSURU.
107. SRI. PURUSHOTHAMARAOJEE K.,
AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O K. SADANANDA RAO,
- 31 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
RESIDING AT ARALIHALLI,
RAMANAGARA H.B. HALLI,
BALLARI - 583 212.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
SHIVAMOGGA.
108. SRI.CHETHAN.H.P
S/O PREMAKUMAR H.K.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HEBBULSE VILLAGE,
HANDLI POST, SOMWARPET,
KODAGU 571 235.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
FOREST MOBILE SQUAD,
MADIKERI.
109. CHANNABASAVARAJ KATTIMANI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O NINGAPPA,
RESIDING AT TUVIHAL,
SINDHANUR TALUK,
RAICHUR 584 132.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
LINGASUR RANGE,
RAICHUR.
110. SRI.SRINIVASA.R.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O RAGHUPATHI,
RESIDING AT KUMADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIRUPAKSHI POST,
MULBAGAL TALUK 563 131.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
CHINTAMANI RANGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
111. SRI. RAKESH ANJUNAWAD
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O LAGAMANNA,
- 32 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
RESIDING AT AP KRISHNA KITTUR,
ATHANI TALUK, BELAGAVI 591 303.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KITTUR RANI CHANNAMMA MINI ZOO,
BELAGAVI
112. SRI.TEJ.Y.P.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS ,
S/O YOGARAJAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO. 2016,
BLUE MALIBU APARTMENT,
13TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS, VIRAT NAGAR,
BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-68.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
RESEARCH RANGE HOSAKOTE,
BENGALURU
113. SMT. POOJASHREE DV.,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
D/O VIJAY KUMAR,
RESIDING AT VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT,
4TH BLOCK, BEHIND GOWDA SAMAJA,
KUSHALNAGARA- 571 234.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
GOVT. TIMBER DEPOT,
ANEKADU, KODAGU.
114. SRI. SACHIN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O NANJUNDASWAMY,
RESIDING AT GUNDAPURA,
HALAGURU, MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA 571 421.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
BEGURU RANGE, MANDYA.
115. SRI. SOMASHEKHARA.J.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O BASAPPA J,
RESIDING AT TEKKALAKOTA POST,
SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI - 583122.
- 33 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
CHALLAKERE SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
CHITRADURGA.
116. SRI.SHASHIDHAR.V.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O VENKATESH,
RESIDING AT NALLAYANADODDI,
THAMMANAYAKANALLI POST,
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562106.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
GUNDRE RANGE, MYSURU.
117. SRI. PRAVEEN RAMAPPA CHALAWADI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O RAMAPPA CHALAWADI,
RESIDING AT BELUR POST,
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI 581 211.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KOLLEGALA BUFFER RANGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR.
118. SRI. NISCHIT M.N.
S/O NINGEGOOWDA MN.,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MAKODU VILLAGE,
JAKKANAHALLI POST,
CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
GOPINATHAN WILDLIFE RANGE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA.
119. SRI. KOUSHIK DALVAI,
AGED 26 YEARS,
S/O MALLESHAPPA,
RESIDING AT 289/3,
SHIVACHIDAMBARA NILAYA,
SHANKAR COLONY,
NEAR BHAM BHAM SWAMY MATHA,
HOSPET - 583 201.
- 34 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,
YELLANDUR,
CHAMRAJNAGARA.
120. SRI.AMRUTH.T.R.
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O RAJU J.,
RESIDING AT INDIRANAGAR,
KURUVATTI SAW MILL ROAD,
MALEBENNUR, DAVANGERE 577 530.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
CHAMRAJNAGARA RANGE,
CHAMRAJNAGAR.
121. SMT.SMITHA.M.D.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
D/O DIWAKAR M.,
RESIDING AT SHARATH NILAYA,
MUGULAVALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101.
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KARKALA WILDLIFE RANGE,
UDUPI.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG
A/W SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4,
SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SATHISH .K, ADV. FOR R10, R11, R12, R14 AND R15,
SRI. S.V.NARASIMHAN, ADV. FOR R9 & R13.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 15/02/2021 IN APPLICATION OS. 6754-
6885/2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
APPLICATIONS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 35 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri P S Rajagopal on behalf of the petitioners along with Sri B O Anil Kumar and the learned AAG on behalf of the official respondents No.1 to 4 and the learned Senior counsel Sri M S Bhagwat on behalf of the private respondents No.5 to 8, 10 to 12 and respondents No 14 and 15 and the learned counsel Sri S V Narasimhan for respondent Nos.9 and 13.
2. The 26 petitioners before this Court were amongst the 132 applicants who were before the Tribunal and the respondents No.1 to 7 herein were arrayed in the same order before the Tribunal and the respondents No.8 to 15 got themselves impleaded before the Tribunal. The respondents No.16 to 121 were applicants before the Tribunal and in that view the applicants sail with the petitioners herein. PLEADINGS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
3. The brief canvassed before the Tribunal was that the official respondents have determined their seniority list in gross violation of statutory requirement and have prayed that the inter se seniority list dated 19.11.2020, in so far as it concerns
- 36 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022respondents No.5 to 7 be quashed and further issue a writ of mandamus and thereby direct the official respondents to redo the seniority list strictly in accordance with the government orders and circulars and in accordance with the C and R Rules.
4. It is the case of the petitioners before the Tribunal, that they were directly recruited to the post of Range Forest Officers (RFO) on various dates. That the applicants 1 to 36 were appointed in 2014, applicants 37 to 76 were appointed in 2014-15, applicants 77 to 114 were appointed in March, 2016 and applicants 115 to 132 were appointed in the year 2017. That, recruitment to the post of RFO is both by way of direct recruitment and promotion from the cadre of Deputy Range Forest Officer (DRFO) and in the ratio of 50:50. That the feeder cadre to the promotional quota in the post of RFO is from amongst the DRFO. That the feeder cadre to the next promotional post of Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF) is from the post of RFOs. That the recruitment to the post of ACF is in the ratio of 75% by way of promotion and 25% by way of direct recruitment. That the cause for the application is the seniority list/gradation list prepared by the second respondent PCCF (HOFF) for the purpose of granting promotion to eligible
- 37 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022RFOs to the post of ACF. That the gradation list is contrary to the Karnataka Forest Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2012 which is produced as Annexure 'A1' to the petition and the impugned gradation list is produced as Annexure 'A2'. The method of recruitment to the post of ACF is found at Sl.No.8 of the Rules. The Rules detail that 75% of the posts of ACF shall be filled up by promotion from the cadre of the RFO and the remaining 25% shall be by way of direct recruitment and the qualifications, etc., to be adhered to, are detailed therein. The minimum qualification for recruitment by way of promotion is stipulated in column 4, which reads as under:
" For promotion; must have put in a service of not less than eight years in the cadre of Range Forest Officer. On promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests they have to undergo promotion linked training for 6 weeks within one year of service, failing which they will not be confirmed as Assistant Conservator of Forests. However, this is subject to nomination to such course."
5. The case of the applicants is that by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. B.
- 38 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022Badami and Others vs. State of Mysore and Others1, the first respondent issued an O.M. dated 05.07.1976. That under the said O.M. guidelines came to be issued thereby mandating the classification of vacancies, method of appointments, etc., That in terms of clause 3(d) it is stipulated that vacancies under the direct recruitment quota and the promotional quota ought to be calculated for the block period with reference to the date of commencement of the C and R Rules in conjunction to the date on which the direct recruits were appointed. That the impugned seniority list has been prepared in gross violation of the official memorandum and as an illustration in this regard, it is contended that the Official respondents while preparing the seniority list have taken different dates for the block period. A reference is made to Annexure 2 to the impugned seniority list which reflects not only the vacancies that have occurred but also the filling up of those vacancies between 27.04.1978 to 31.12.2019 and the relevant block period being 43 to 48 indicated at Sl.No.23 to 28 of the chart, which it is contended is on the face of it violative of the guidelines stipulated under the Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976. That the impugned 1 (1976) 2 SCC 901
- 39 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022seniority list adopts the date of recruitment as a block period which is contrary to the Official Memorandum.
6. A reference to block 44 is sought to be made as an illustration of their contention. That the 44th block period was from 5.7.2009 to 11.8.2014. That despite the last date being within the 44th block, the appointments made between 16.1.2014 to 11.8.2014 numbering 59 have been shown as having been made in block 44, but appointments made between 4.12.2014 and 18.11.2015 have been merged into block 45 and appointments made between 30.6.2017 to 23.8.2017 numbering about 67 have been merged into block 47 and appointments made between 16.11.2019 and 28.11.2019 numbering about 75 have been merged into block
48. That the State has adopted the date of appointment from one appointment to another appointment as the block period which is contrary to law and the block period is required to be calculated on the basis of one direct recruitment to another, has not been followed and this has created a very anomalous position vis a vis the applicants and is grossly detrimental to their promotional prospects and consequently prejudices their service conditions. Nextly, it was contended that the quota
- 40 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022rule of 50:50 has been grossly violated by the second respondent, who has promoted huge numbers, disproportionate to the quota, thereby resulting in excessive numbers of DRFOs occupying the quota of direct recruits and resulting in the excessive officers blocking the promotional prospects of direct recruits.
7. It was contended that the official respondents ought to have firstly prepared the seniority list for the period 1978 till 13.12.2019 and the same ought to have been reviewed with reference to the date of eligibility of the candidate to be promoted and the promotions already granted ought to have been reviewed and thereafter the final seniority list ought to have been compiled. Secondly it has been contended that cases of the persons who have been deprived, had to be reviewed and considered as contemplated under Sections 4, 5, 6 read with Section 9 of the KSCS (Regulation of PP and P) Act, 1973 and Rule 2(i) of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1978'). That the provisions of the Act and Rules have not been followed in letter and spirit. Thirdly, it has been contended that as per the
- 41 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022Official Memorandum, even such of those candidates who have retired or who are not in service must also be considered for the purpose of providing notional seniority. That, if such a method had been adopted it would have resulted in 390 more names finding a place in the seniority list and this would have resulted in drastic changes to the seniority/gradation that has been assigned to the DRFOs, who admittedly constitute the feeder cadre to 50% of the posts in the RFO.
8. It was contended before the Tribunal that this aspect of the matter has been placed before the official respondents by way of objections to the draft seniority list. Despite the same, the official respondents have turned a blind eye resulting in some of the DRFOs being conferred with an artificial eligibility date which has resulted in alteration of the seniority/gradation of the applicants. That if the notional seniority had been assigned to the employees, who had by now retired or left the service, it would have resulted in deceleration of the eligibility dates and the promotees would not have been entitled for promotion and the eligibility date would have stood postponed. That this objection has been simply brushed aside by holding that employees who have already retired or left service are not
- 42 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022entitled for consideration as they have not raised any grievance against the denial of notional seniority. In that view, the official respondents have held that the applicants have no locus standi to canvas the same. This despite the fact that some of the promotees, junior to the applicants have been placed above them as they have been given eligibility dates at a point of time they were not entitled, as, the retired and other employees, were in employment on the relevant date of time and were undisputedly seniors to the respondents whose dates of eligibility has been fixed retrospectively at a later point of time. It is contended that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 09.10.1969 is inapplicable to the applicants' case.
9. It was further contended before the Tribunal that the seniority list of the DRFO cadre ought to have been finalized at the State level. That this exercise ought to have preceded the exercise of determining the seniority for the post of RFO. That this omission to finalize and complete the State level DRFO seniority list has deprived the petitioners of filing objections to the same in respect of such of those officers, who have been assigned eligibility dates retrospectively merely on the strength of the availability of vacancy. That this error has crept in, since
- 43 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022the circlewise seniority list of DRFOs has not been amalgamated and published at the State level. That unless such circlewise seniority of the DRFOs is finalized and amalgamated at the State level it would be impossible to draw up the State level seniority list of DRFOs. That the failure to adhere to this measure has resulted in an unsustainable seniority list being drawn up.
10. It was nextly contended that the failure to prepare and maintain the vacancy register, which is a mandatory document also vitiates the impugned seniority list. It was further canvassed that the failure to maintain the vacancy register has resulted in the respondents adopting an imaginary date and thereby vitiating the impugned seniority list.
11. It has further been canvassed that the quota rule has been consistently violated and the impugned seniority list is a result of whimsical action rendering the seniority list arbitrary and being violative of Articles 14 and 16.
12. It has been contended that the applicants had submitted a detailed statement of objection and enclosed supporting documents on 16.09.2020. That the detailed
- 44 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022objections has not evoked any response from the official respondents who proceeded to issue the final seniority list. That the finalization of the seniority list is contrary to instructions issued under circulars dated 27.02.2019, 15.05.2019 and 24.06.2019, wherein it has been stated that the seniority list should be revised in terms of the provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the KCS (RPP) Act of 1993. That in terms of the above provisions the retired members also were required to be considered for the sake of grant of notional promotion. It is further elaborated that the aspect of seniority of officers who have been transferred from one circle to another has also not been considered. It is elaborated that when a DRFO is transferred from one circle to another, then he is to be placed at the bottommost position in the order of seniority list of that circle.
PLEADINGS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7
13. The above application came to be resisted by the private respondents No.5 to 7 by filing their statement of objections. It is pertinent to note that the official respondents have not preferred any statement of objections before the Tribunal.
- 45 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
14. It is contended by respondents No.5 to 7 that they are also direct recruits to the post of RFO and recruited in the year 2009. That the applicants have no grievance to the seniority list assigned to them and that the grievance of the applicants is only in respect of promotions granted to persons shown in block 44 of the seniority list from 05.07.2009 to 11.08.2014. That these respondents being senior in recruitment had already acquired the eligibility to be promoted as ACF and that the applicants are not eligible for being considered to the promotional post of ACF. That the real grievance of the applicants is against the promotees. In sum and substance it has been pleaded that the respondents No.5 to 7 being seniors and their appointment being at an earlier point of time the applicants can have no grievance.
PLEADINGS BY WAY OF SYNOPSIS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.13 to 15
15. The respondents 9 to 15 who got themselves impleaded vide Tribunal's order dated 07.01.2021 and 11.01.2021 have not filed any statement of objections and it is the seniority of these applicants which has been questioned before the Tribunal. But on the other hand they have filed
- 46 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022what is captioned as a brief synopsis. It is contended that the applicants being direct recruits have no cause of action to espouse the cause of DRFOs. That if at all there is to be a challenge to their seniority it ought to be only by a person within the promotional quota and the applicants not being from the promotional quota have no locus standi to challenge the seniority as on today and hence it is contended that the same is not maintainable. In para 4 of the synopsis the private respondents No.13 to 15 have set out the details of the 390 persons, who the applicants contended have been left out while fixing and assigning notional seniority with retrospective effect.
16. In para 4(i) it is stated that 86 persons are presently working as RFO's.
In para 4(ii) it is stated that 121 persons have retired form service prior to 6.1.2014.
In para 4(iii) it is stated that 20 persons have retired form service prior to 3.12.2015.
In para 4(iv) it is stated that 51 persons have retired form service prior to 28.12.2015. (It is pertinent to note that the
- 47 -
WP No. 5453 of 202243rd Block ended on 04.07.2009 and the 44th Block commenced thereafter.) It is further stated that in view of the above these respondents have been granted promotion with effect from 01.12.2014 (R15) and on 28.12.2015 (R13 and R14) and on the date of promotion 192 vacancies were available in the cadre of RFO and even if the 390 names referred to by the petitioners were qualified to be promoted and if they had been promoted they would have retired from service as on the date of promotions of these respondents and hence the promotion granted to them is valid.
The pleadings in para 4(v) of the synopsis is as under:
"The information in respect of 112 persons, these respondents have to ascertain, whether they were qualified or otherwise for promotion as the said information is not furnished by the applicants. In this connection, it is submitted that mere assignment of eligibility date in the seniority list does not entitle a person to claim promotion on the basis of the said eligibility date. The case of such of the persons is required to be considered by the appointing authority for promotion and suitable orders have to be passed promoting them to the
- 48 -WP No. 5453 of 2022
cadre of Range Forest Officers by reviewing the promotion thus far made as provided under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Pay, Promotion and Pension) Act, 1973. (Sec.3 & 4). Therefore the contention of the applicants is liable to be rejected."
17. On a reading of the above it is apparent that these respondents fairly admit that mere assignment of eligibility date does not entitle a person to claim promotion from the said date and this Court is in agreement with the same. In Para 5 of the synopsis it is admitted that the post of DRFO is a circlewise post and the Statewise list requires to be amalgamated and the consolidated Statewise seniority list is required to be finalized before consideration of DRFO's to the promotional post of RFO and in which the applicants have been appointed to. It is stated that respondent No.2 is not entitled to alter the seniority assigned in the circlewise list and is merely required to interpolate the names in the Statewise seniority list. That the direct recruits have no right to file any objection to the seniority list finalized in the lower cadre i.e., in the circle and hence it is contended that they had no locus to file objections to the circlewise seniority list. It is nextly stated
- 49 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022in the synopsis that non finalization of the seniority list in the lower cadre is not fatal to the final seniority list in the higher cadre.
18. It is pertinent to note the statement in para 6 of the synopsis.
" These respondents submit that they were promoted to the cadre of RFO during 2014 on the basis of the seniority list of DRFO which was published and updated in the year 2001and updated in the year 2007. The seniority assigned to them in the said list has remained unchallenged for the past 13 years. These respondents therefore submit that the applicants in the guise of challenging the seniority list of RFOs cannot challenge the promotions made to the applicants in the year 2014 (1994 KSLJ 339). Therefore, the present applications are liable to be rejected."
19. In para 7 it is stated that several RFOs in the earlier block periods have been promoted to the cadre of ACF based on the seniority list published for the year and who were similarly placed as these respondents. That the applicants have not chosen to question the same or the seniority assigned to such of those officers.
- 50 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
20. In para 8 it is contended that the applicants being direct recruits, cannot be aggrieved by the seniority assigned to these respondents in the lower cadre though admittedly the applicants were appointed as RFOs in 2014 onwards. It is further stated that date of eligibility cannot be the date for assigning seniority and the same depends on the availability of post in the quota reserved for appointment by promotion. Along with the synopsis the private respondents have enclosed a statement furnishing the details of the 390 DRFOs referred to in Annexure A7 and have also enclosed copy of the rulings reported in (2010) 1 SCC 417 and 1994 KSLJ 339. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT IMPUGNED IN THE WRIT PETITION:
21. This Court has closely scrutinized the order impugned. The Tribunal has recorded the facts in paras 2 to 11 and has proceeded to appreciate and render its findings in paras 13 to
18. On a close reading of paragraphs 13 to 18, it would reveal that the Tribunal has placed reliance on the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Baij Nath Sharma v. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur2 . In support 2 (1998) 7 SCC 44
- 51 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022of its finding that a person who has been superannuated cannot claim promotion unless it was demonstrated that his junior was promoted or assigned a deemed date of eligibility prior to his date of superannuation or retirement. Secondly, it has held that the applicants have not challenged the order of promotion granted to the impleading respondents and in this regard has placed reliance on the ruling rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amarjeet Singh and Others vs. Devi Ratan and Others3.
22. In para 15 it has recorded and reasoned that since respondents 13 to 15 are claiming seniority only from the date of substantive appointment and since they have been regularly appointed to the vacant post in the promotional quota the challenge to the same has to fail. Thirdly, in para 16 the Tribunal has accepted that the amalgamation of the Statewise DRFO list and the seniority assigned to the various DRFOs is not open to challenge by the petitioners, in other words it has virtually accepted the defence of the private respondents that the applicants have no locus standi to question the seniority list 3 (2010) 1 SCC 417
- 52 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022in a lower cadre. In the penultimate para 18 the Tribunal has held that respondents No.5 to 7 who are direct recruits and seniors to the applicants are to be considered in block 43 and the applicants are to be considered in block 44 and accepted the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 and proceeded to reject the application.
23. This Court has no quarrel with the first principles and the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore stated rulings, but this Court finds that the Tribunal has failed in observing one cardinal principle, that of appreciating as to whether the ratio laid down in the precedent is applicable in the facts of the case.
24. This Court proceeds to examine the rulings upon which the Tribunal has placed reliance to reject the application. The Tribunal has relied upon the ruling rendered in Baij Nath Sharma's case to hold that a retired employee cannot be considered for promotion. In our opinion, the said finding is contrary to the dictum of the said judgment. A perusal of paragraph No.6 would demonstrate that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that promotions to juniors if effected
- 53 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022prospectively, after the retirement of the senior officer, would not give a cause of action to demand a notional promotion by the retired employee. The Hon'ble Apex Court was further pleased to hold that in the event any retrospective promotion of a junior is given from a date anterior to the date of superannuation of the employee, he would certainly have a cause of action. It would be useful to extract paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 for the sake of convenience. The same reads as under:-
"6. The appellant could certainly have a grievance if any of his juniors had been given promotion from a date prior to his superannuation. It is not the case here. From the promotional quota, four promotions were made only on 30- 12-1996, i.e., after the appellant had retired. Those promoted were given promotions from the dates the orders of their promotions were issued and not from the dates the posts had fallen vacant. It is also the contention of the High Court that these four officers, who were promoted to the RHJS, were senior to the appellant as per the seniority list. The question which falls for consideration is very narrow and that is, if under the rules applicable to the appellant promotion was to be given to him from the date the post fell vacant or from the date when order for promotion is made. We have not been shown any rule which could help the
- 54 -WP No. 5453 of 2022
appellant. No officer in the RJS has been promoted to the RHJS prior to 31-5-1996 who is junior to the appellant. Further decision by the Rajasthan High Court has been taken to restore the imbalance between the direct recruits and the promotees which, of course, as noted above, is beyond challenge.
7. In Union of India v. K.K. Vadera this Court with reference to the Defence Research and Development Service Rules, 1970, held that promotion would be effective from the date of the order and not from the date when promotional posts were created. Rule 8 of those Rules did not specify any date from which the promotion would be effective. This Court said as under: (SCC pp. 626-27, para
5) "5. There is no statutory provision that the promotion to the post of Scientist 'B' should take effect from July 1 of the year in which the promotion is granted. It may be that rightly or wrongly, for some reason or the other, the promotions were granted from July 1, but we do not find any justifying reason for the direction given by the Tribunal that the promotions of the respondents to the posts of Scientist 'B' should be with effect from the date of the creation of these promotional posts. We do not know of any law or any rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post. After a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a
- 55 -WP No. 5453 of 2022
promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant. In the same way when additional posts are created, promotions to those posts can be granted only after the Assessment Board has met and made its recommendations for promotions being granted. If on the contrary, promotions are directed to become effective from the date of the creation of additional posts, then it would have the effect of giving promotions even before the Assessment Board has met and assessed the suitability of the candidates for promotion. In the circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the judgment of the Tribunal."
8. It is regrettable because of the inaction on the part of the High Court that recruitment from the Bar could not be made in time which created an imbalance in the service and ultimately it were the appellant and officers similarly placed who suffered. After having put in long years of service, it is the seniority and promotion which an officer looks forward to. He expects he is given due promotion in time. Non- promotion may be an incidence of any service. But here the appellant has been deprived of his promotion without any fault of his. The High Court said that it might be a sad state of affairs that the name of the appellant was not considered for promotion till he retired. The High Court may feel anguished but it gives no comfort to the appellant. At least
- 56 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022for the future, such an unfortunate thing should not happen to any other officer similarly situated. This malaise which abysmally afflicts any service when there is recruitment from different sources crops up in one form or the other with great disadvantage to one or the other. But then the service is not constituted merely for the benefit of the officers in the service but with a certain purpose in view and in the present case, for dispensing justice to the public at large. It is not at all advisable to keep any post in the judiciary vacant for days when the courts are burdened with arrears and the litigants are the ones who suffer. We expect the High Courts to be vigilant and to fill up the posts in the direct quota in time and if the Bar quota cannot be filled for any reason for no fault of the promotee officers, their case for promotion should not be kept pending till some of them even superannuate. When the process for recruitment from the Bar begins and it is expected that posts for the direct quota will be filled up soon, during the intervening period, the officers in the subordinate service can be given ad hoc promotions without their right to claim seniority over direct recruits, who may join later. Functioning of the courts must not stop."
25. The interpretation placed by the Tribunal on the above citation is erroneous. We have perused the judgment in the case of Jagadish Ch. Patnaik and Others vs. State of
- 57 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022Orissa and Others4. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the law settled in V. B. Badami's case and has negated the claim for promotion from a date anterior to the date of his appointment. In fact, the observations in paragraph nos.26, 27 and 28 run contrary to the reasoning of the Tribunal. In fact, one of the grievance of the applicants is that promotees have been granted promotions in excess of the quota reserved for them. Neither is this allegation discussed nor is a finding rendered negating the assertion. Further, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no.32 also does not support the conclusions.
26. Nextly, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the ruling rendered in Amarjeet Singh's Case to hold that the application which merely challenges the seniority list with no challenge to the orders of promotion, is unsustainable. In our considered opinion, the said ruling is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the said ruling is distinguishable. Firstly, the retrospective promotion was amongst the peers whereas in the case on hand, the private 4 (1998) 4 SCC 456
- 58 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022respondents were in a lower cadre/feeder cadre and have been promoted to the cadre into which the applicants were directly recruited into. It is pertinent to note that the private respondents have been promoted against a different quota reserved in respect of service candidates unlike the applicants whose appointments is against a different quota. Hence, the question of the applicants challenging promotion is of no consequence. But as the official respondents have placed them above the applicants in the promotional cadre into which the applicants had been directly recruited, gives rise to a cause of action as the ascendancy of the applicants to the next promotional post of ACF would depend on the gradation/seniority assigned in the RFO cadre. This, the Tribunal has completely lost sight of. The Tribunal failed to realize that the applicants and the private respondents come from different streams and different sources of appointment. The crux of the issue is the ranking assigned in the common stream of RFO cadre where both the direct recruits and the promotees merge and a common state wise seniority list is drawn up and which is the basis for the officers to ascend and migrate to the next cadre of ACF. Hence, the reliance placed by
- 59 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022the Tribunal on Amarjeet Singh's case is erroneous. What is agitated under the petition is the limited issue of inter se seniority in the RFO cadre and not the right of the promotees to be promoted to the RFO cadre. The limited grievance canvassed is that the date of eligibility adopted by the official respondents from which date promotion is granted to them with retrospective effect. In fact, the Tribunal would have profited had it looked into the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.27 and 28 of the said judgment. Further reliance of the Tribunal on K. Meghachandra Singh and Others vs. Ningam Siro and Others5 case is erroneous. The facts and circumstances in the said case and the facts and circumstances in the present case are totally at variance. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the law in general, that no person, is entitled for a seniority from a date before he was born in service.
SUBMISSIONS CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
27. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel that that applicants are all direct recruits to the post of RFO and the 5 (2020) 5 SCC 689
- 60 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022method of recruitment under the Mysore Forest Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1958 was in the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd by way of promotion. That the Karnataka Forest Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1987 came to be notified in 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1987' for short) and was published in the Official Gazette on 28.08.1987 and under the Rules, 1987, the ratio of recruitment to the post of RFO which was earlier fixed 2/3rd and 1/3rd came to be changed and ratio was fixed at 50% by way of direct recruitment and 50% by way of promotion. That the Karnataka Forest Department Services (Recruitment) Rules of 2003 came to be notified on 04.08.2003 and the strength of the cadre of RFO came to be increased and fixed at 630 but the ratio/quota for the different streams remained the same. The Recruitment Rules came to be amended once again in 2012 and it was published in the Official Gazetter on 18.10.2012 yet again the Recruitment Rules came to be amended in 2014 and the cadre strength of the RFOs came to be increased to 764. It is contended that the reliance placed by the respondent State is a Rule that was rescinded on account of Amendment to the Rules dated 20.05.2015. That the Government and the DP and AR
- 61 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022Department in view of the protest and objections stayed all further action pursuant to the amendment dated 20.05.2015. It is also contended that the seniority list has been prepared by giving a go-by to the Rules framed pursuant to Article 371-J of the Constitution i.e., 2013 Order and on the above count alone, the impugned seniority list stands vitiated. It is further contended that the impugned seniority list has been prepared contrary to the Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976 (Annexure-A6) and which OM came to be published pursuant to the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. B. Badami's case. By the said judgment, the Constitutional Bench was pleased to hold that the sanctity of the quota is inviolable and which law came to be reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gonal Bhimappa vs. State of Karnataka and Others6. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that on 24.06.2019, a Circular (Annexure-A4) came to be issued by the DPAR detailing the steps to be taken for implementation of the case of B. K. Pavithra's (II) case and that pursuant to the said judgment, the seniority list prior to 2017 have lost their existence and the 6 1987 (Supp) SCC 207
- 62 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022names of all the retired and deceased civil servants also requires to be included in the list. He would further draw the attention of the Court to Annexure-AA dated 22.04.2021, a clarification issued by the DP and AR. He would elaborate that the clarification came to be issued on the request of the Forest Department and under the clarification, it has been directed to prepare a statewise seniority list of the DRFOs and that such list only should be operated for determining the date of eligibility of the DRFOs to be promoted to the next cadre i.e., the cadre into which the applicants were directly recruited. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that applications to the post of 653 RFOs came to be published in 2011 and 63 persons came to be recruited on 29.02.2012. That subsequently the 2nd respondent issued a Notification dated 12.09.2012 for recruiting 62 RFOs. That the applicants are none other than the candidate whose recruitment came to be finalized 29.02.2012 and were appointed as Training Officer and had successfully completed their training. That appointment orders to 34 persons came to be issued on 04.12.2014. That on 09.03.2015, appointment orders came to
- 63 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022be issued to another batch of 22 persons, who were selected under the Notification dated 12.09.2012.
28. The learned Senior counsel would then take the Court through Annexure-M dated 01.10.2011 and would point out that the respondent State has clearly admitted that Rule 32 of the KCSR has been resorted to in order to place promotee officers to posts which under the quota of direct recruits and thus 46 DRFOs were placed in independent charge of the post of RFO against the vacancies under the direct recruitment quota. Taking the Court through Annexure-N, he would point out that a further number of 82 DRFOs came to be similarly placed in independent charge of RFOs posts, which were reserved against direct recruitment vacancies on 10.12.2012. The DRFOs are admittedly placed on temporary basis. He would take the Court through the said annexure to point out that it is admitted by the respondents State that no vacancies are available against the 50% promotional quota and that all the persons have been placed against direct recruitment quota and would contend that this is in the teeth of the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in V. B. Badami's case. He would further take the Court through Annexure-P to point out that a
- 64 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022further batch of 28 DRFOs being temporarily placed in independent charge in the post of RFO and against the direct recruitment vacancies. He would then take this Court through Annexure-Q dated 21-28/12/2015 and he would submit that the Department proceeded to grant officiating promotion to the DRFOs, who were placed in the independent charge in the post of RFOs which admittedly were vacancies in the direct recruitment quota. He would contend that this order of granting officiating promotion in December 2015 is contrary to Annexure-AC dated 20.11.2015.
29. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that a provisional seniority list in the cadre of RFO came to be published on 16.09.2020 for the period commencing from 27.04.1978 to 31.12.2019. That the said list came to be issued pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.K.Pavithra's case (II). He would then take the Court through Annexure-A7 series dated 21.09.2020 and would contend that the applicants in their objections had sought details of the vacancy register from 1978 to 2020, annual administrative reports that have arisen during the said period. He would submit that the material on record would show that
- 65 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022several promotees have been excluded. He would further submit that the block periods are not in accordance with the OM dated 05.07.1976 (Annexure-A6). That the shortfall and excesses carried forward are also incorrectly shown and the date of commencement of the block periods is also erroneous. As an illustration, he would place reliance on the placement of promotees at Sl. No. 1437 to 1582 in the 44th block period and placement of the promotees at Sl. Nos.1642 to 1680 in the 45th block period and would contend that the same is illegal for the reason that the promotees were placed against the vacancies arising under the direct recruitment quota and that the service rendered against such post cannot be counted in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V. B. Badami's case.
30. It is further contended by the learned Senior counsel that the 2nd respondent has simply brushed aside the objections on an erroneous precision of law and has proceeded to publish the final seniority list.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
31. Per contra, learned AAG would vehemently oppose the petition. It is pertinent to note, at this stage itself, that the
- 66 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022official respondents had not filed statement of objections before the Tribunal but have chosen to prefer a statement of objections before this Court. This Court had permitted the statement of objections in order to enable the official respondents to place justification for the fixing of the date of eligibility. On perusal of the statement of objections, we find that the objections are more technical in nature and reliance is placed on a host of Gradation Lists commencing from 1991 pertaining to the cadre of RFOs and the copies of the orders granting them promotion with retrospective effect i.e., in respect of employees who were appointed in the year 1968 and 1969 the relevance of which is not elucidated before us. Copy of the OM dated 12.12.1957 with regard to procedure for submission of representation by the Government Servant is placed before the Court. That apart, proceedings dated 16.06.2021 by which final statewise seniority list in the cadre of DRFO came to be published is also placed, that is, after retrospective promotions have been granted. It is interesting to note that the same has been made subject to the orders that may be passed in the pending proceedings.
- 67 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
32. The learned AAG Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa would contend that the DRFOs post is a circle wise cadre post and the circle wise seniority list drawn up and maintained by the competent authority namely Chief Conservator of Forest in the respective circles. On the other hand, he would submit that the post of RFO is a state wise cadre and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest(Head of Forest Force) is the competent authority and that the final seniority list was prepared and amalgamated and published vide OM dated 16.06.2021. He would contend that the seniority assigned at the circle level to the DRFOs cannot be tinkered at the instance of the applicants as they occupy posts in a higher cadre. He would elaborate that the seniority list has been prepared in accordance with the established procedure and more particularly, in accordance with B. K. Pavithra's case. The argument, on the face of it, is fallacious. No doubt circlewise seniority is maintained in respect of DRFO's, but the fact remains that migration or appointment to the promotional post of RFO, is dependant on the Statewise seniority list of DRFO's.
33. He would submit that on account of departmental exigencies, the DRFOs were placed under Rule 32 of the KCSR
- 68 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022arrangement and that based on the services rendered by them while officiating in independent charge under Rule 32 of the KCSR which is in accordance with the Rules. That the promotions were granted subject to the DPC held on 29.10.2015 and 03.11.2015.
34. That the impugned seniority list pertains to the block periods 21 to 48. He would reiterate his contention that the applicants had no role or standing in law to question the correctness of the Seniority List in the lower cadre of DRFOs. At first blush, the argument appears convincing but the same requires to be rejected for reasons to be recorded by us above and elucidated later. He would place reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baij Nath Sharma to contend that retired persons cannot be placed in the seniority list of the feeder cadre to draw the list of candidates against the promotional quota. He would also place reliance of the judgment in Amarjeeth Singh's case and would contend that the DRFOs have been placed in the vacancies against the promotional quota and there is no encroachment of the vacancies against the direct recruitment quota. He would question the maintainability of the application on the short
- 69 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022ground that the petitioners have failed to avail to the alternate remedy under Rules 18 and 22 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and would contend that an alternate remedy by way of appeal to the Government was available but they have approached the Tribunal without availing of the said remedy. We find this objection a little strange.
35. The fact remains that, now the contesting respondents and official respondents have not preferred any statement of objections before the Tribunal. Now, at this late stage, after the applicants have approached this Court, the bogey of alternative remedy is sought to be raised and that too, after the Tribunal has adjudicated the issues on merits. That apart, we see that the appeal is to the very same respondent, which in our opinion, would be an attempt in vain. For the above reason, the contention regarding non-availment of alternate remedy requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. He would contend that amalgamated circle wise seniority list and preparation of state wise seniority list in the cadre of DRFO is only for administrative reasons. He would lastly contend that in view of the impugned seniority list is in
- 70 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022consonance with the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants promoted on the basis of Reservation (to the post of Civil Services of the State) Act, 2017.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
36. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. M. S. Bhagwat for contesting respondents (promotees) would contend on the lines and in support of the impugned order by the Tribunal. He would place reliance on the case of Amarjeeth Singh and K. Megha Chandra's case. Additionally, he would also place reliance on the ruling reported in Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another7, State of Orissa and Another vs. Mamta Mohanty8 and Rana Rudhir Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others9. He would also place a copy of the DPC proceedings dated 03.11.2015 and Notification dated 08.01.2007.
7 (2012) 8 SCC 148 8 (2011) 3 SCC 436 9 1989 supp 1 SCC 615
- 71 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
37. The reliance on the rulings rendered in Amarjeeth Singh and K. Megha Chandra Singh's case have been discussed by this Court supra and the same are found inapplicable in view of the varying facts and circumstances. It is seen that the first ruling is in respect of a suit instituted under the Specific Reliefs Act and the instant case being one under the service jurisprudence, we are constrained to hold that the same is inapplicable and, distinguishable. The second ruling arises in the education field. The answer to the objections canvassed by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent lies in paragraph Nos.56, 57 and 68 of the said judgment itself and hence, requires no further discussion. The learned Senior counsel would contend that arguments regarding excess post being filled up etc. are all contentions not supported by necessary pleadings. In our considered opinion, the said contention is erroneous. The answer can be found in paragraph No.5 and in the grounds of the application and in fact, it is an admitted case that Rule 32 arrangements were made in respect of vacancies available under the direct recruitment quota.
- 72 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022
38. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, by way of reply, would contend that it is erroneous that no state wise seniority list is prepared in respect of RFOs, he would submit that the same is contrary to the case of the respondents itself. He would submit that the state wise seniority list in the feeder cadre from amongst whom candidates are promoted to the higher cadre of RFOs. He would contend that the reasoning and reliance on the case of Baij Nath Sharma is erroneous. He would submit that was a case, where no junior had been promoted from a date anterior to the date of superannuation and all promotions were effected prospectively. Hence, the same is inapplicable to the case on hand. In the case on hand, he would submit that promotions have been given from dates anterior to the date on which their seniors retired. He would contend that in such an event, the employees who have retired would be entitled to notional promotion and such service benefits as is permissible under law. He would take the Court through the list of names found in the vacancy register but not found in the impugned list. He would contend that such an exercise without reference to the vacancy register and the deliberate screening of the vacancy
- 73 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022register would go to show that all is not well. Lastly, he would take the Court through Rule 2(1)(c) of the Rules, 1978. He would contend that if the provisions are appreciated in conjunction with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, it is clear that the time spent while officiating under Rule 32 in a post arising in the direct recruitment quota cannot be taken into consideration and the same would be illegal. REASONING AND CONCLUSIIONS:
39. Before we advert to the various submissions canvassed before us, we deem it necessary to place reliance on the observations of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.Nos.8005/2020 and connected matters, to which one of us is a party, and wherein the above provisions of sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 of the Rules, 1978 were examined. A useful reference could be made to the observations of the Co-ordinate Bench in Paragraph Nos.8 to 13. The said observation, in our considered opinion, squarely applies to the facts of the instant case also.
Paragraph Nos.8 to 13 reads as under:-
"8. Firstly, we examine the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of the KSCS (PPP) Rules;
- 74 -WP No. 5453 of 2022
"2. Promotion.- Promotion of a civil servant may be made with effect from a retrospective date.-
(1) and (2)xxx (3) If, while being eligible according to his seniority in the list that was in force and otherwise fit for promotion according to Cadre and Recruitment Rules he had only been placed in independent charge of the post by the Competent Authority and has discharged the duties of the said post:
(Provided that if a civil servant on deputation to some other department and placed in independent charge of a post in the parent Department was prevented from discharging the duties of the post on the ground that his services on deputation are essential in public interest, he shall also be considered under this sub-rule from the date his junior is considered for promotion.)"
9. From a reading of the above Rule, it is apparent that for the rule to be invoked or made applicable, certain pre-requisites are to be met with by the candidates claiming benefits and by
- 75 -WP No. 5453 of 2022
respondent-department also. The first pre- requisite is that the candidate who is placed in a higher post by invoking Rule 32 of the KCSR's, before he being posted in the said post he ought to have achieved eligibility to occupy the post, secondly, the eligibility should be calculated from the stand point of his seniority in the list that was in vogue, and thirdly, he must be found fit for promotion on that date, according to the Cadre And Recruitment Rules, on the date he was placed in the said higher post and he ought to have been placed in independent charge of said post and lastly, such orders placing him in independent charge ought to be passed by the competent authority and pursuant to which, he ought to have discharged his duties in the said post and only then can he claim the benefit of the said sub-rule.
10. The brief summation above would go to show that a candidate must have attained eligibility in accordance with the seniority list to hold the higher post and the availability of vacancy in the said post must also be established and his eligibility to be promoted to the said post as on that day must also be established. In this
- 76 -WP No. 5453 of 2022
background, we have examined the order impugned.
11. The order is ominously silent on all these aspects. Let alone a discussion there is not even a mention of the pre-requisites. The order does not even whisper as to whether the candidates met with the pre-requisites and whether they possessed eligibility and in accordance with their seniority and as to whether they are fit for promotion and whether they have been placed in independent charge by the competent authority, none of these factors have either been considered, much less discussed and on this short ground alone the writ petition filed by the State requires to be allowed.
12. The applications and the writ petitions have been canvassed on twin grounds, (1) that the candidates i.e., the applicants, did not possess the eligibility as on the date they were placed in independent charge and secondly, they were placed in the independent charge in exercising the power under Rule 32 of the KCSRs', against quota which was reserved for direct recruits and applicants being promotees were ineligible to be permitted to occupy the said post. The said
- 77 -WP No. 5453 of 2022
contentions were rejected by the Tribunal without analysing and examining the same and rendering any finding negating the said contention.
13. Per contra, we find that the Tribunal has been swayed by first principles that operate in the domain of granting retrospective promotion. It is needless to say that we have no quarrel with the principles evolved and settled by various rulings on which, much reliance is placed by the Tribunal. But the fact remains that Tribunal has completely given a go-bye and failed in analysing as to whether the said principles are applicable to the facts on hand. In our considered opinion the said rulings are inapplicable to the facts available in the present case on hand. Our view is fortified by order passed by the Tribunal in Contempt Application Nos.1369-1376/2021 dated 02.08.2022 which order has remained unchallenged even today."
40. We have given our anxious consideration to the various contentions canvassed, we have also perused in detail the voluminous material placed before us. A detailed examination of both the statement of objections filed before
- 78 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022this Court and the various annexures enclosed therewith do not reveal any exercise having been carried out either to identify the available vacancies against the promotional quota or ascertaining the date of eligibility of the respective candidates much less their eligibility to be given the benefit of the officiating period. The pleadings reveal that certain candidates have been permitted to officiate as in-charge under Rule 32 against vacancies arising under the direct recruitees quota. The fact also remains that in the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 the recruitment rules have been amended resulting in increasing the cadre strength of the RFOs. There is not even an argument advanced that the vacancies were filled-up after carrying out an exercise in the nature stated above. The objections by the official respondents does not even whisper as to whether an exercise has been carried out to assess the eligibility of the candidates to extend the benefit under Rule 2 of the 1978 Rules. The law in this regard is no more res integra and has been authoritatively stated by the Constitutional Bench in V. B. Badami's case and reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gonal Bhimappa's case i.e, the sanctity of the quota fixed under the C & R Rules is inviolable and even if officers are
- 79 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022placed in such posts, they do not derive any benefit under the same. Hence, on this short ground itself, the impugned seniority list requires to be interfered with as being in the teeth of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V. B. Badami's case. The action being contrary to settled law, the same is rendered non est in the eye of law and such actions do not confer any rights on the parties.
41. The next ground adopted by the Tribunal to reject the application is literally one of maintainability. The Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the seniority list of the DRFOs being in the lower cadre, the applicants who are in higher cadre have no right to question the same. The answer to this is not far to seek. The official respondents in paragraph No.5 of their statement of objections have contended as under:-
"5. It is respectfully submitted that as per the existing Cadre and Recruitment Rules of Forest Department, the Selection Authority for the Post of Deputy Range Forest Officer is, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of Forest Force) and the Chief Conservator of Forest of the concerned Circle is the Appointing Authority. The post of Deputy Range Forest Officer is a Circle-wise Cadre post and accordingly the respective Chief Conservator of Forests of each Circle would prepare, publish and finalize
- 80 -WP No. 5453 of 2022
the Circle-wise seniority list of Deputy Range Forest Officers. Further, the post of Range Forest Officer is the State-wise cadre and both Selection and Appointing Authority is the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of Forest Force). Hence, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of Forest Force) is the competent authority to prepare and publish the seniority list of Range Forest Officers based on the seniority assigned in the previous cadre i.e., Deputy Range Forest Officers. All these final seniority lists have been amalgamated / consolidated and published by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) vide Official Memorandum No. B3/Sibbandi/Viva-
12/2021-22 dated: 16.06.2021, a copy of which is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R1. Therefore the contention of the Petitioners in this regard is untenable in the eye of law."
42. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the State admits that the promotion of DRFOs to the higher post of RFO is dependent not on the circle wise list, but the amalgamated state wise seniority list of DRFOs. If that be the case, then the contention that the 2nd respondents cannot tinker with circle wise seniority list prepared by the CCFS is fallacious. The respondents may be right to a limited extent as
- 81 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022promotions are not based on the circle wise list but on the amalgamated statewise list of DRFOs.
43. If the respondents while preparing such a statewise DRFO seniority list, either maliciously or inadvertently assign an eligibility date with retrospective effect thereby enabling him to leap frog not only his peers in the DRFO list but also the officers in the direct recruits list, could it still be contended that such action is beyond judicial review. If the impact of such erroneous retrospective fixation of eligibility date was applicable only to the DRFOs certainly the argument canvassed regarding maintainability of the challenge could have been sustained. Unfortunately, the erroneously fixed dates not only enables the beneficiary to leap frog his peers i.e., DRFOs, but he would also be leap frogging the RFOs and it would also indirectly accelerate his movement in the RFO gradation/seniority list. Thus, directly impinging on the service conditions and promotional prospects of the direct recruits. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate this fact.
44. Be that as it may, it is seen that these are all factual aspects of the matter. It ought to have been dealt with
- 82 -
WP No. 5453 of 2022in detail by the official respondents or atleast by the Tribunal which is the Court of first instance. The pleadings and records placed before us does not reveal any such appreciation of facts in the backdrop of the provisions of law and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and which still holds the field. In our considered opinion, the impugned seniority list is vitiated by non-application of mind and thus, rendering it arbitrary.
45. The respondents were required to first determine the nature of the vacancy in which the officer, the DRFO, was officiating in independent charge i.e, as to whether the vacancy is against the promotional quota or of the direct recruitment quota. Thereafter, the respondents were required to ascertain as to whether the officer was eligible to be placed in independent charge in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules, 1978. We do not find any material which demonstrates such a consideration. In that view of the matter, the petitioners succeed. Accordingly, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The order of the Tribunal dated 15.02.2021 passed in Application Nos.6754-6885/2020 is
- 83 -WP No. 5453 of 2022
hereby set-aside. The application is partly allowed.
(ii) Consequently, the impugned seniority list is hereby quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to 2nd respondent to re-do the seniority list in the light of the observations made hereinabove and strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V. B. Badami's case and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 2 of Rules, 1978.
(iv) The exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ykl/DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1