Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri B.J.Hosmath on 13 December, 2018
Bench: Ravi Malimath, K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
WRIT PETITION NO.42749 OF 2018 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SPECIAL SELECTION COMMITTEE
FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF
PCCF (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE)
IN APEX SCALE OF IFS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON,
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU -560 001.
3. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FOREST, ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING,
SACHIVALAYA-II,
BENGALURU -560 001. ... PETITIONERS
2
(BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, ADDL.
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B. J. HOSMATH
SON OF SRI J. R. HOSAMATH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RETIRED PRINCIPAL CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
C/O. S. S. HIREMATH,
NO.2A, 2ND CROSS,
PATEL PILLE GOWDA LAYOUT,
RAMACHANDRAPURA,
VIDYARANYAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 013.
2. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND WILDLIFE,
PARYAVARNA BHAVAN,
C.G.O. COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI-110 003.
3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
4. SRI KISHAN SINGH SUGARA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FORESTS & HOFF (RETIRED),
ARANYA BHAVAN,
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003. ... RESPONDENTS
3
(BY SRI S. P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.6.2018 PASSED IN
O.A.NO.170/00483/2017 BY THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Respondent No.1 is a 1982 batch Officer of the Indian Forest Service of Karnataka Cadre. He was promoted to super-time scale thereafter. By a Notification dated 27-9-2008 his post was upgraded and designated to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. The said post had to be filled up from amongst the IFS officers holding the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in the State Cadre. Pursuant to the same, the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka, which was in the Super Time Scale (HAG+) of Rs.75,000/- 4 (Annual increment at 3%) - Rs.80,000/-(fixed), Grade Pay-Nil" was upgraded and designated as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) (PCCF, HOFF for short). The Notification also indicated that the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) shall be filled up by selection amongst the IFS officers holding the post PCCF (HOFF) in the State Cadre. Consequently, the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the post of PCCF(Head of Forest Force). The 1st respondent was also eligible to be considered for the same along with others. The Selection Committee considered the names of three officers in the order of seniority. The applicant was the 1st respondent in the seniority followed by the 4th respondent and another. The Committee considered the eligibility and other factors, recommended the selection of the 4th respondent and thereby he was appointed. A representation was made by the 1st respondent against the same. The same was not considered favourably. Questioning the same, the 1st 5 respondent filed OA No.170/00483 of 2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing the selection proceedings and to direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Forces. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the application and directed the respondents to pass necessary orders for granting notional appointment to the applicant from the date his junior was appointed to apex scale and to grant him the consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the State has filed this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on the proceedings of the Selection Committee vide Annexure-A7 contends that the 1st respondent was left with a service of only one month whereas the selected candidate had a period of 8 months. Therefore, it was of the view that it would not be appropriate to appoint a person who was having only a one month tenure. The Hon'ble Chief Minister in terms of the impugned Annexure-A8 considered the proceedings of the 6 Selection Committee and approved their recommendation. Therefore, it is contended that since the period is only one month the said appointment has not been granted to the 1st respondent. That the Tribunal committed an error in granting the notional promotion as well as appointment which is wholly uncalled for. Hence, he pleads that the petition be allowed. The same is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is indeed a fact that the 1st respondent had only a tenure of one month before he could retire. But, however, the law does not contemplate that a person having a tenure of one month should not be promoted. What is being relied upon by the State is a copy of the guidelines. Reliance is placed upon the Government Order dated 12-5-2009 vide Annexure-A5 which stipulates the eligibility and the parameters for selection. Apparently, the respondent qualifies for the eligibility criteria and the parameters for selection. The 7 same are based on outstanding merit and competence, absolute integrity, seniority and having a specific suitability for the post. That these qualifications shall be based on the ACRs/PARs and service records. Apparently, the reasons assigned by the Selection Committee is that the 1st respondent had only a period of one month service. That is not one of the parameters as specified by the State in the aforesaid Notification. The parameters specified are only one of absolute integrity, suitability, outstanding merit and competence. Apparently, the 1st respondent possesses all these requirements. If the State intended not to appoint a candidate who had a limited period of service, the same would have been narrated in the parameters of selection. The same has not been done by the State. Therefore, there is no specific period for a selected person to hold a post. Therefore, to import a new parameter would be gross injustice to the respondent. If the State intended to include a specific period, it would have done so. No such period is mentioned. Therefore, 8 the new parameter for selection cannot be introduced by the Selection Committee. Therefore, to reject him only because he has a limited period of one month is not supported by any Rule, Order or Notification. The act of the State in not promoting him has led to gross miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal was therefore justified in granting notional appointment and consequential benefits. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal are just and proper and based on the material on record. Hence, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well considered order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE
rsk/-