Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Durga Prasad Sharma vs M/O Environment And Forests on 13 December, 2021
i O.A, No, 444/2017 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Original Application No. 444/2017 Order reserved on : 02.12.2021 Date of order: 13..12,.2) HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A) HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (J) Durga Prasad Sharma s/o Late Shri C.P. Sharma, aged 59 years, resident of 84, Century Homes, Near Patrakar Colony, Mansarovar, Jaipur presently working as Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan. . Applicant (Applicant in person) Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryawaran Bhavan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi 110003. 2. Chief Secretary, State of Raj asthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 5, Shri Anil Kumar Goel, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HOFF), Department of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Jaipur, Raj asthan . ....Respondents (By Adv: Shri V.D. Sharma) Order Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A)
In this Original Applicationthe applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a) For a direction upon the respondent
b)
d) authorities to promote/select the applicant to the post of PCCF (HoFF) in the apex scale of Rs. 80,000/- (fixed) (unrevised) with effect from 01.10.2016 j.e. the date on which the post of PCCF (HOFF) became vacant on account of retirement of the then officers.
For cancellation of the impugned order dated 25.11.2016 by which respondent no. 5 Shri Anil Kumar Goel who stands junior to the applicant has been made the PCCF (HOFF), because the same infringes the fundamental rights of the applicant as contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India .
For a_ direction on the' respondent authorities to extend the tenure of the applicant so that the applicant be allowed to serve for a period of 11 months, which he would have been able to if he was promoted by natural course of events.
For a direction in alternative to grant the substantive pay-scale of PCCF (HoFF) i.e. Rs. 80,000/- fixed (unrevised) with effect from 01.10.2016 on the principle of "next below rule" because junior officers have been granted the aforesaid pay-scale of PCCF (HOFF) and also to grant the difference of arrears of salary.
For adirection to initiate disciplinary action against the responsible respondent authorities who deliberately and malafidely with the sole intention to deny genuine and legal promotion to the applicant delayed the meeting of selection comrnittee to extend undue advantage to a junior officer which is unprecedented and against fundamental principles of service jurisprudence.
3O.A. No, 444/2017
f) The applicant prays for allowing the cost of litigation incurred in filing the instant application upon the respondents .
g) The applicant prays for other relief/relief(s), direction/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit for doing conscionable justice to the applicant under the facts and circumstances of the instant case."
2. The case of the applicant is mainly on the ground that the meeting of the selection committee was not held on the date fixed (14.10.2016) when the applicant was the only eligible candidate (as PCCF in the HAG grade of Rs 75500-79000) available for selection to the post of Head of Forest Forces (HoFF), in the Apex Scale of RSs. 30000/-. This committee finally met on 21.11.2016, by which time two other persons were promoted as PCCF and brought under the zone of consideration. One of them, respondent no. 5, an officer junior to the applicant, was recommended by this committee and posted as HOFF, while ignoring the applicant who was senior to him and had been working as PCCF w.e.f. 31.12.2015 without anything against him to deprive him of his selection to the Apex scale. The applicant has claimed that this is contrary to the rules relevant for promotion. He has also prayed for giving benefit of the Apex Scale, from the date it was given to his junior, and cited instances of such apex scale given to more than one person in other states.
oust, aa/a0i7
3. The respondents have denied the claim made by the applicant. Besides objecting to it on account of the applicant not having exhausted alternate remedy, it is stated that only one person amongst those in the rank of PCCF could be granted Apex Scale of HOFF in the state. The applicant was not recommended for selection to this post taking into account his overall service. The reply states that the applicant was not granted the PCCF grade in the first instance (in the year 2014), on account of very average ACRs and below' benchmark performance. The reply also talks about the below 5 marks gradings given to the applicant in the past years and thus justifying the decision of the selection committee about not recommending him for the post of HOFF.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating his nd also annexing the decisions of the Karnataka claim 42 and Bihar Benches of this Tribunal, where this Tribunal, in what he claims to be similar situation, granted notional benefit of grant of Apex Scale of the HOFF, to officers who superannuated without getting the HOFF grade, due to wrongful rejection of their claim.
5. The matter was heard on 02.12.2021. The applicant argued for himself and prayed for correction of injustice meted out to him despite him being the most 5 senior and the only officer eligible for selection on a date when the selection committee should have met and was scheduled to meet. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the committee did meet much before the end of that calendar year in which the vacancy arose and did not find the applicant suitable for recommendation as per the parameters prescribed for selection to this highest post of forest officers in the state.
6. We have gone through the pleadings and heard the arguments. There is not much dispute regarding facts in this case I is not denied that the selection committee did not meet on the day when the applicant would have been the only candidate and it is also not denied that it did meet just one a half month after that, and the plicant was also considered along with two others, and was not recommended for selection. It is true that the licant would have been the only candidate in the zone of consideration if the meeting was held as stated to be originally scheduled, on 14.10.2016. But it would be hypothetical, and, therefore, will not be correct, to assume that the applicant would have been recommended for HOFF, if the meeting was held as scheduled. Thus, the relief prayed by the applicant cannot be granted only on the basis of that incorrect, & O.A, No. 4494/2017 hypothetical, assumption. The respondents have given detailed reasons about why the committee found the applicant not fit to be recommended for promotion to the HOFF. His record of service does not prima-facie appear to be outstandingly meritorious to deserve such recommendation, as 4 matter of right, and only on the basis of seniority, especially for the highest post in the Forest Services, where the parameter for selection specifically provide for: "Outstanding merit, competence, absolute integrity and having specific suitability for the post." Thus, we do not find any merit in the claim of the a pplicant to grant him promotion to the Apex Scale of HOFF either on ground of the selection committee necting not taking place on an originally scheduled date, or on ground of his seniority over the person who f was selected on ground of better suitability for this post.
7. Another argument by the applicant, in favour of his prayer for grant of Apex scale is that it has been given to more than one person in other states (Sikkim and tamilnadu)(Annexure-A/7). First of all, we do not think that this fact alone, of such scale given to more than one person in other state, can be a valid ground. We are not aware of the circumstances that justified giving such scale and whether those justifications were correct and not mere exceptions not to be followed as a rule. There | i Z OA, No, 444/2017 is apparently no violation of the constitutionally guaranteed equality since officers of All India Services working under various state cadres do work under different circumstances and under _ different governments: While there are certain common rules governing selection/pay/pension, and also provisions for consultation with GOI/UPSC to ensure certain common standards, there are other areas where there is room for differences. In such cases, though it may not be wrong for an all-India-service officer to ask for what is being done in other states, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of any rule which mandates parity of treatment across states.
g. We have also gone through the two cases decided by the Banglore Bench (O.A. No. 483/2017 titled Sri B.J. Hosmath Vs. U.O.1.80rs. dated 19.06.2018) and Patna Bench (0.A. No. 1430/2017 titled Pradeep Kumar Vs. y.o.I. & Ors. dated 10.08.2018) of this Tribunal. We do d that there is similarity with the matter before us since both these cases relate to selection to the post of HOFF. However, WE do not find these cases to support the contention of the applicant in the present case. In the case before the Karnataka Bench, while the selection found 3 persons equally good and eligible, the rejection of the applicant therein was solely on ground of fesser i tenure available. The Hon'ble Bench found such rejection wrong as it was found that the same state government has selected many other persons as HOFF with less than that period of tenure remaining. The Bihar Bench granted the notional benefits because the selection committee which rejected the applicant had selected a person who was not even an eligible person in the zone of consideration (having been made PCCF in the evening while the meeting took place in the afternoon). In the present case, the selection has been made by the committee on relevant considerations, and there are no such egregious violations as were found in the cases quoted by the applicant, to support his claim for grant of notional benefit.
9, For all these reasons, we do not think we can grant the prayers made by the applicant. The Original application, is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(Hina P. Shan) 7 (Dinesh Sharma) --~l Member (J) Member (A) iVv~ fa sess i.
oa at.