Jharkhand High Court
Sushil Kumar Verma & Others vs State Of Jharkhand & Others on 3 May, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3695 of 2007
Niranjan Kumar Ghosh & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 1847 of 2007
Sushil Kumar Verma & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Advocate
[in W.P.(S) No. 3695 of 2007]
For the RespondentState : Mr. Binod Singh, S.C. (L&C)
Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, J.C. to S.C. (L&C)
[in W.P.(S) No. 3695 of 2007]
For the RespondentJPSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Divyam, Advocate
[in W.P.(S) No 1847 of 2007]
17/03.05.2017Order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 505 of 1989 (R) tilted "Ram Naresh Dubey and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others", a copy of which has been annexed in the connected writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1847 of 2007, would demonstrate that this Court has found that the Bihar Forest Manual contains Rules framed by the State Government. In the said decision referring to Rule 3.21 (ii) under which Forest Guards who stood first with Honours at the Guards Training School and have put in atleast five years of satisfactory service are granted accelerated promotion to the post of Forester, the Court held that without approval of the State Government the said provision cannot be modified or withdrawn. Letter dated 15.06.2006, by which the provision for accelerated 2 promotion has allegedly been withdrawn records, "oujf{k;ksa dks ouiky ds in ij Rofjr izksUufr@fu;qfDr laca/kh izko/kku dks lekIr djus dk fu.kZ; ljdkj }kjk fy;k x;k gSA"
2. Way back on 25.07.2016, this Court directed the State to produce the original resolution/decision by which the provision for accelerated promotion was withdrawn. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 11.08.2016, 15.09.2016, 20.10.2016, however, the socalled Government's decision was not produced by the respondents. When the matter was listed on 11.11.2016 the following order was passed by the Court:
"From letter dated 15.06.2006 vide Annexure12 to the writ petition it appears that the Government took a decision to withdraw the provision for accelerated promotion of the Forest Guards to the post of Forester, however, the Government's decision has not been produced by the State. Vide order dated 25.07.2016 this Court directed the State to produce the original decision of the Government whereby, accelerated promotion to the post of Forester has been withdrawn. Again on 11.08.2016 this Court permitted the State to file supplementary affidavit and place on record the Government's decision. Subsequently, on 15.09.2016 by way of last indulgence the State was permitted to file supplementary counteraffidavit. Inspite of aforesaid orders neither an affidavit has been filed nor the Government's decision has been placed on record. The learned State counsel seeks further two weeks' time.
Granted.
Post the matter on 02.12.2016.
Respondent no. 2 is directed to produce the original file containing the Government's decision to 3 withdraw the provision for accelerated promotion."
3. Thereafter, on the request on behalf of respondent no. 2 the matter was adjourned for 03.12.2016 and 15.12.2016, still, Court's order was not complied with. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court issued a showcause notice to the Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, why a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against him for wilfull violation of the Court's order. Only thereafter, the original file was produced in the Court on 20.01.2017. Order dated 20.01.2017 records that there is no order of the Government prior to the letter dated 15.06.2006 and even the learned counsels for the parties could not locate any order including order dated 16.07.1990, a reference of which finds mention in the file.
4. Pursuant to order dated 20.01.2017, an affidavit by respondent no. 2 has been tendered in the Court.
5. Taken on record.
6. In the affidavit filed by respondent no. 2, it is stated that there is no decision of the Government in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India and decision of the Government, if any, for withdrawing the provision for accelerated promotion has not been published in the official Gazette. A bare look at the Rule 1.1 under Chapter I and other provisions under Bihar Forest Manual would disclose that Forest Rules have statutory force.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent no. 2 shall issue necessary orders for gathering information from the Forest Divisions in the State of Jharkhand for filing an affidavit disclosing, how many persons have been denied benefit of accelerated promotions in the garb of order contained in letter dated 15.06.2006. To ascertain their stand in the previous proceedings, the respondents shall also produce orders passed by this Court, in compliance of which promotions have been granted.
8. Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, O.S.D. Department of Forest, 4 Environment and Climate Change is present in the Court. On his request one month's time is granted for filing necessary affidavit.
9. Post the matter on 19.06.2017.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Amit/