Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Yashwant Govindrao Patil vs Environment And Forest on 15 October, 2025
1 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, CAMP AT NAGPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022
Dated this Wednesday the 15th October, 2025
CORAM : HON'BLEMR. SHRIKRISHNA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI UMESH GAJANKUSH, MEMBER (J)
OA NO.616/2022
Yashwant s/o Govindrao Patil
Aged about 62 Years, Occupation:
Retired, Resident of 705, Sandalwood
Apartments-II, Opp. D.A.V. Public
School, D.P. Road, Aundh, Pune - 411
007. Mobile No.-9373312884,
[email protected]. - Applicant
(By Advocate Shri S.Y. Deopujari)
Versus
1) Union of India, represented
Through its Secretary, Ministry of
Environment and Forest, Indira
Prayavaran Bhawan, Near Metro
Station Jorbagh, New Delhi - 110 003.
2) Union Public Service Commission,
Represented through its Secretary,
Shahajahan Road, New Delhi - 110 001.
3) State of Maharashtra represented
Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya
Mumbai - 32.
4) Principal Secretary (Forests)
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. -Respondents
Digitally signed by Hemant
Hemant Anant Mahabal
(By Advocate Shri P.H. Khobragade - R1
Location:
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
and Ms. Mugdha Chandurkar - R3 & R4)
2025.2.1
2 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022
OA NO.617/2022
Sunil s/o Balkrishna Banubakode
Aged about 62 years, Occ: Retired
D.F.O., resident of 601 Lily,
Vrindavan Garden, Khamla,
Nagpur - 440 015.
Mobile No.-8605019919
[email protected]. - Applicant
(By Advocate Shri S.Y. Deopujari)
Versus
1) Union of India, represented
Through its Secretary, Ministry of
Environment and Forest and Climate Change,
Indira Prayavaran Bhawan, Near Metro
Station Jorbagh, New Delhi - 110 003.
2) Union Public Service Commission,
Represented through its Secretary,
Shahajahan Road, New Delhi - 110 001.
3) State of Maharashtra represented
Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya
Mumbai - 32.
4) Principal Secretary (Forests)
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri P.H. Khobragade - R1
and Ms. Mugdha Chandurkar - R3 & R4)
Order reserved on :16.09.2025
Order pronounced on :15.10.2025
ORDER
Per: Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Anant Mahabal Since the issue involved is common Location:
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 in both these OAs, the same are being decided 3 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 by passing a common order.
2. The applicant has filed OA No.616/2022 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to claim the following reliefs:
"8(i) That the impugned communication dated 25/3/2021 (Annexure A/1) issued by Respondent No.1 by which the representation of the applicant dated 26.12.2013 is rejected/disposed of by the Respondent No.1 be quashed and set aside being illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law;
(ii) It be declared that the applicant is entitled to be included in the notification for promotion dated 10 th December, 2013 for appointment to Maharashtra cadre of the Indian Forest Service as he has been duly selected by the selection committee and approved by the Respondent No.2/UPSC and it be held that the applicant is eligible for promotion to the IFS cadre along with the officers in the select list for the year 2010, who are promoted vide order dated 10th December. (Annexure A-
8).
(iii) The Respondent No.1 be further directed to issue an order or direction to include the name of the applicant in the notification dated 12/20 September 2013 by giving him a deem date of promotion which is given to the other 8 State Forest Service Officers of Maharashtra in the select list for the year - 2010.
(iv) The Respondents be further directed to grant to the applicant all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits accruing due to grant of deemed date of promotion/induction in IFS cadre from the date on which the other 8 officers have been inducted to the IFS Cadre. Digitally signed by Hemant
Hemant Anant Mahabal
Location:
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 (v) The present application be allowed with costs;
(vi) Any other relief this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and 4 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 proper under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the applicant in the interest of justice."
3. Brief facts as stated in the OA are that the applicants in both the OAs were the officers in Maharashtra State Forest Service (SFoS) Officers Cadre belonging to 1984-85 batch,were working as Assistant Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra. They retired from the State service as Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) on 13th April, 2012 by opting for voluntary retirement. The applicants fulfilled all the necessary criterion/eligibility conditions as per All India Service Rules and guidelines for induction to Indian Forest Service. The names of the applicantswere not included in the first list submitted by the office of respondent No.4/State Government and by office of Principal Conservator of Forest, Maharashtra. However, in the light of the relevant rules and regulations, the respondent No.2/UPSC specifically directed the respondent Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Anant Mahabal Anant Location:
Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' No.4/State Government to include the names of Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 applicants in the list of the officers of 5 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 State Forest Service, Maharashtra in order to promote them to Indian Forest Service (IFoS) cadre.
3.1 It has been submitted that it was specifically brought to the notice of respondent No.4/State Government that the applicantswere very much in service in the year 2010 and had the meeting been held in 2011, they would have been considered by the Selection Committee. Therefore, as the meeting was being held for vacancies for the year 2010, the names of the applicantswere required to be included for consideration of Selection Committee for induction to IFS even though the meeting was being held in the year 2012-2013.
The names of the applicantswere, accordingly, included in the list of the officers who were to be considered for the year 2010 which was sent to respondent Nos.1 and 2. The names of the applicants were considered by the Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Selection Committee in its meeting held in Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 December, 2012 for induction of applicant in 6 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 IFoS cadre against the vacancies for the year 2010.
3.2 The respondent No.1 published a select list on 12th September, 2013for promotion from officers of State Forest Service of Maharashtra Cadre to the Indian Forest Service for the year 2009 A, 2010 and 2011, duly approved by the respondent No.2/UPSC, vide its Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) Notification dated 12/20th September, 2013, as no meetings of selection committee were held in the year 2009, 2010 and 2011, as provided under Regulation No.5 of 1966 Regulations.
3.3 In the select list for the year 2010, the names of the applicantswere shown at serial No.4 and 3 respectively for being selected for promotion from the State Forest Service of Maharashtra Cadre to Indian Forest Service for the year 2010. By the foot note, Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal the Chief Secretary of the State of Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 Maharashtra/respondent No.4 was also requested 7 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 to forward necessary proposal for promotion of the eligible officers to the Indian Forest Service alongwith the required documents to the respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 05th October, 2013 forwarded the documents submitted by the applicants and other persons in the select list to the Director (IFS-II) of the respondent No.1 by a communication dated 05th October, 2013 attaching the documents/declarations submitted by the applicant.
3.4 The respondent No.1 published a Notification dated 10th December, 2013 for appointing the officers in the select list to Indian Forest Service without including the names of the applicants. The names of the applicantswere deleted from the final select list appointing officers to Indian Forest Service for the year 2010 even though their names were approved by the UPSC, which is Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal totally illegal and against the provisions of Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 Regulations of 1966.8 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022 3.5 It is the case of the applicants that deletion of the names of the applicants from the select list approved by UPSC was done by the respondent No.1 without consulting the UPSC which was a mandatory requirement under Regulation 10 of the IFS Regulations of 1966. 3.6 It has been submitted that as per the Regulation No.10 of IFS Regulations of 1966, the respondent No.1 is not empowered to make any change in the select list finalised by the UPSC unless said change is in the public interest or it is in public interest to delete any name of such person.Respondent No.1 had kept the 2 vacancies for the year 2010 unfilled even though both the deleted officers were very much available in the select list and that there was no issue which can be termed as against the public interest in respect of the applicants.
Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal 3.7 The applicants made a representation Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 dated 26th December, 2013 to the respondent 9 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 No.4. By the said representation after narrating the factual aspects of the matter in detail, the applicants prayed to move to the respondent No.1 to review the case of the applicants in the light of the said representation and requested the respondent No.1 to withdraw the action and to include the names of the applicants at the same serial No.4 and 3 respectively as mentioned in the select list for the year 2010 so as to give them justice. The applicants also requested to communicate the issue officially to the respondent No.2/UPSC and to keep on hold all further process of induction to IFS cadre against the two vacant posts in the select list of the year 2010 till the issue is resolved. However, no cognizance of the said representation of the applicants appears to have been taken by the respondents.
3.8 Aggrieved by the above action of the
Hemant
Digitally signed by Hemant
Anant Mahabal
respondents, the applicants filed OA
Location:
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 No.2284/2014 and OA No.2017/2015 before this 10 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 Tribunal. This Tribunal vide common order dated 20th February, 2019 disposed of the said OAs with direction to the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 26th December, 2013 submitted by the applicants and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the Tribunal's order.
3.9 Pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, the Chief Secretary, Maharashtra State fixed the hearing on the representation of the applicants on 04th January, 2021 and heard the applicants in person. The Chief Secretary, Maharashtra State vide order dated 08th January, 2021 passed a reasoned order, after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in the case of V. Suresh Kumar, Retired Vs. Union of India Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal and the judgment delivered by Division Bench Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2025.2.1 11 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 Bench dated 02nd February, 2015 in WP No.7472/2013 and other 4 Writ Petitions involving similar issue and directed the Revenue and Forest Department to immediately forward the representation of the applicants to the respondent No.1 for their reconsideration as the respondent No.1 is the appointing authority to induct State Forest Service officer into Indian Forest Service as per Rule 8 of Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. Accordingly, the Revenue and Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra vide communication dated 14th January, 2021 requested to respondent No.1 to review the case of the applicants by considering the order passed by the Chief Secretary, Maharashtra dated 08th January, 2021.
3.10 The respondent No.1 vide order dated 25th March, 2021 addressed to the Principal Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Secretary (Forests), Government of Maharashtra, Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 Mumbai, informed that in terms of Regulation 12 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 9(1) of the IFoS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 amended from time to time, a member of the State Forest Service may be appointed into IFoS. Since the applicants had taken voluntary retirement in the year 2012, they were no longer members of State Forest Service and in absence of any enabling provision in the IFoS(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, the case of the applicants could not be considered by the respondent No.1 for induction into IFS. The said letter was forwarded by The Additional Chief Conservator of Forest (Personnel), Nagpur on 25th June, 2021 rejecting the representation of the applicants. Being aggrieved by the communication dated 25th March, 2021 passed by the respondent No.1, the applicants have filed this OA.
3.11 The applicants have relied on the decision in OA No.744/2013 with OA Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal No.778/2013 decided on 14th October, 2013 by Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, order dated 13 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 12th November, 2010 in OA No.170/2010 decided by Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal and judgment of Hon'ble High court of Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 02nd February, 2015 in Writ Petition No.7472/2013 and other 4 Writ Petitions.
4. After issuance of notice, the respondent No.1 has filed their reply and contested the OA.
4.1 It has been submitted that the promotions from the State Forest Services (SFS) to Indian Forest Services (IFoS) are governed by the provisions of IFoS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 as amended from time to time. The promotion from SFS to IFoS involves various steps like determination of vacancies for a particular Select year, preparation and forwarding of proposal by State Government to Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), holding of Selection Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Committee Meeting (SCM) by UPSC, concurrence Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 of minutes, Notification of Select List 14 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 approved by UPSC and formal proposal from State Government for appointment of SFoS to IFoS and issue of appointment order. 4.2 It has been submitted that the holding of SCM falls in the domain of UPSC and State Government. This Ministry has no role in holding of SCM.
4.3 It has been further submitted that the procedure for induction of State Forest Service (SFoS) officers to Indian Forest Service (IFoS) officers is governed by the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. The appointment is subject to the following information which is furnished by State Government in respect of the officers recommended by the Selection Committee:
(i) A declaration of singular marital status.
(ii) Written consent for termination of Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal lien in the State Forest Service on Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 confirmation in the Indian Forest Service. 15 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022
(iii) A certificate by the State Government that there is no stay order of any court prohibiting the appointment of State Forest Service officers by promotion to the Indian Forest Service.
(iv) A certificate by the State
Government, that there is no
disciplinary/vigilance case
pending/contemplated against the officers recommended for promotion.
4.4 It has been submitted that as per clause 9(1) of IFoS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1966, appointment of a member of the State Forest Service, who has expressed his willingness to be appointed to the service, shall be made by the Central Government in the order in which the names of members of the State Forest Service appear in the Select List for the time being in force during the period when the select list remains in force.
Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal 4.5 It has been submitted that Rule 8(2) Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 of the Indian Forest Service(Recruitment) 16 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 Rules, 1966 provides that "Where a vacancy occurs in a State Cadre which is to be filled under the provision of this rule, the vacancy shall be filled by promotion of a member of the State Forest Service.
4.6 It has been submitted that the Selection Committee constituted under Regulation 3 of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations recommended the names of the applicants, to promote them from State Forest Service to Indian Forest Service against the select year 2010 to the Maharashtra Cadre. The names of the applicants were included in the select list for the year 2010 for the promotion to IFoS in terms of the Minutes of the Meeting approved by UPSC. However, it came to notice of the Ministry from letter dated 24th September, 2013 of the Government of Maharashtra that the applicants had taken Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal voluntary retirement in the year 2012 from the Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 State Forest Service. Proposal for their 17 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 promotion from SFS to IFoS was examined by the Ministry and applicantswere not a member of the State Forest Service on the date of issuance of Notification dated 10th December, 2013. Therefore, in terms of Rule 8(2) of The Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and clause 9(1) of IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, the applicantsare not entitled for promotion from SFS to IFoS.
4.7 It has been submitted that the present OAsare devoid of any merits and no substance in the matters. The same are liable to be dismissed.
5. The applicants have filed rejoinder to the reply submitted by Respondent No.1.
5.1. It has been submitted that in the reply dated 03.04.2023, the Respondent No.1 has admitted that the promotion from State Forest Service (SFS) to Indian Forest Service (IFS) are governed by the provisions of IFoS Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 as amended from time to time. It is also admitted 18 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 by Respondent No.1 that for the said promotion various steps are involved like determination of vacancies for a particular select year, preparation and forwarding of proposal by the State Government to Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for holding Selection Committee Meeting (SCM) by UPSC, publication of Notification of Select List approved by UPSC and formal proposal from State Government for appointment of SFS to IFS and issued appointment order. It is also submitted by Respondent No.1 that holding of SCM falls in the domain of UPSC and State Government and the Respondent No.1/Central Government has no role in holding SCM.
5.2. It has been submitted that nowhere in the reply the Respondent No.1 has disputed that initially though the applicants have fulfilled all the necessary criterion/eligibility conditions as per All India Service Rules and guidelines for induction to Indian Forest Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: Service, their names were not included in the Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 first list submitted by the office of State of 19 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 Maharashtra. However, when in the light of the relevant rules and regulations, the Respondent No.2/UPSC specifically directed the State of Maharashtra to include the name of the applicant in the list of the officers of State Forest Service, Maharashtra in order to promote them to Indian Forest Service Cadre as the applicants were very much in Service in theyear 2010 and that had the meeting been held in 2010 as per clause 5(1) of the I.Fo.S. Regulations of 1966, they would have been considered by Selection Committee, for induction to Indian Forest Service in the meeting which was being held in the year 2012-2013, the name of the applicants were accordingly included in the list of Officers which were to be considered for the year 2010 which was sent to Respondents No.1 and 2 and accordingly the names of applicants were considered by the Selection Committee in its meeting held in December, 2012 for induction against the vacancies for the Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: year 2010.
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 5.3. It has been further submitted that 20 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 undisputedly in the light of the provisions of Regulation of 1966, the State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary recommended the name of applicants to Respondents No.1 and 2 for induction against the vacancies for the year 2010 and in view of compliance of all eligibility criteria provided under the Regulations of 1966, the non-applicant no.1 published a Select List for promotion from officers of State Forest Service of Maharashtra Cadre to the Indian Forest Service for the year 2009 A, 2010 and 2011, duly approved by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), vide its Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) Notification dated 12/20 September, 2013, as no meetings of selection committee were held in the year 2009, 2010 and 2011, as provided under Regulation No.5 of 1966 Regulations in which the name of the applicant was also included for the year 2010.
5.4. It has been submitted that in the Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: Select List for the year 2010, the name of the Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 applicantsare shown at Sr.No.7 and 4 21 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 respectively being selected for promotion from the State Forest Service of Maharashtra Cadre to Indian Forest Service for the year 2010. By the foot note in the said notification, the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra /Non-applicant No.4 was also requested to forward necessary proposal for promotion of the eligible officers to the Indian Forest Service along with the following documents to the Non- applicant no.1 Ministry immediately:-
(i) A declaration as to singular marital status
(ii) Written consent for termination of lien on the State Forest Service on confirmation in the Indian Forest Service.
(iii) A certificate by State Government that there is no stay order of any court prohibiting the appointment of State Forest Service Officers by promotion to the Indian Forest Service Maharashtra.
(iv) A certificate by the State Government that there is no disciplinary/vigilance case pending Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: / contemplated against the officers recommended Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 for promotion.22 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022 5.5. It has been submitted that the said documents were also submitted by the applicants along with a covering letter dated 25.09.2013 to the Respondent No.3 and the Respondent No.3 through Department of Revenue and Forest State of Maharashtra forwarded the same to the Director (IFS-II) of the Non-applicant no.1 by a communication dated 5th of October, 2013 and thus the applicants were duly selected for the promotion to the IFS Cadre by UPSC and he made all required compliances as stated above. 5.6. It has been further submitted that the names of the applicants were deleted by the Respondent No.1 from the final select list appointing officers to Indian Forest Service for the year 2010 even though their names were approved by the Union Public Service Commission.
The deletion of the names of the applicants from the select list approved by UPSC was done by Respondent no.1 without consulting the U.P.S.C. which is mandatory under Regulation 10 Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: of the Regulation of 1966 and published a Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 notification dated 10th of December, 2013 for 23 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 appointing the officers in the select list to Indian Forest Service without including the names of the applicants, which was totally illegal and against the provisions of Regulations of 1966.
5.7. It has been further submitted that the reason now given by the Respondent No.1 is that as it came to the notice of the Ministry that the applicants have taken voluntary retirement in the year 2012 from the State Forest Service, and as the applicants were not a member of the State Forest Service on the date of issuance of Notification dated 10.12.2013, therefore, in terms of Rule 8(2) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 the applicants were not entitled for promotion from SFoS to IFoS.
The Respondent No.1 while doing so has exercised the powers not vested in it under the Regulations of 1966 and has, therefore, committed a grave error of law. Not only this but the availability of the applicants for Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: induction to IFoS needs to be considered for Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 the year of selection i.e. 2010 and not for the 24 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 year of notification. As such the applicants were in service as substantive member of State Forest Service in 2010, 2011 till 01.12.2012. Since there was a delay in holding a meeting of SCM and in the meanwhile applicants had retired, the applicants should have been notionally appointed to IFS along with other members in the selection list of year 2010. 5.8. It has been further submitted that in other cases of concerned officers who happened to retire due to delay in holding SCM meeting, they are notionally appointed in IFoS cadre by the Respondent No.1/MOEF. A copy of order dated 05.08.2019 is filed for perusal.
Therefore, similar action could have also been taken in the present case and applicant ought to have been appointed notionally along with the other 8 members in the select list of 2010 who have been inducted in IFoS vide GOI/MoEF notification dated 10.12.2013 by way of promotion to IFoS cadre extending all Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: consequential benefits arising thereof.
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 Therefore, the reasons given by the Respondent 25 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 No.1 for deleting the names of the applicants from the final select list are unsustainable in the eyes of law and also against the settled principles of law.
6. The Respondent No.2 have not filed any reply inspite of the service of notice.
7. During the arguments, the learned counsel for both the sides argued their cases on the basis of pleadings and also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants have placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
i) Syed Khalid Rizvi and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Others, (1993) IILL887SC;
ii) Union of India & Others vs. Vipin Chandra Hiralal Shah, AIRONLINE 1996 SC 1259;
iii) Union of India &Anr. Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors., AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1682;
iv) Mahesh Chand vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (C) No.844/2013 decided on 16.10.2014;
v) Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in the case of Union of India &Anr. Vs. Arjun Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: Behra and Ors.in W.P. (C) No.38585 of 2023 Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 decided on 08.01.2024;26 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022
vi) Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Kumar Bhagwan Khaire vs. Union of India Thr. Secretary And Ors.in Writ Petition (ST) No.10290 of 2021 decided on 21.05.2021;
vii) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pramod Babanrao Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors.in W.P. (C) No.3173/2020 decided on 19.05.2020;
viii) CAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Balbir Singh Khoka Vs. M/o Environment And Forests in O.A.060/00297/2020;
ix) CAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gulia Vs. M/o Environment And Forests in O.A.No.060/00305/2020 decided on 09.07.2020;
x) CAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Satyavir Singh Sheron vs. M/o Environment and Forests in O.A.060/00306/2020 decided on 07.09.2020;
xi) CAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Satish Gupta Vs. M/o Environment and Forests in O.A.No.063/00426/2019 decided on 30.04.2019;
xii) CAT, Cuttak Bench in the case of H Maharathavs. State in O.A.No.260/329/2018, 260/330/2018, 260/331/2018, 260/332/2018 decided on 04.12.2019;
xiii) CAT, Cuttack Bench in the case of Baikuntha Bihari Mishra vs. Forest And Environment Deptt.in O.A.No.260/092/2021 decided on 17.01.2023;
xiv) CAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Tejveer Singh Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests in O.A.No.463/2017 decided on 04.12.2018; Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location:
xv) CAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Smt.Kusum Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 Sharma vs. Union of India, through its Secretary in O.A.No.332/00304/2014 decided on 26.05.2016;27 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022 xvi) CAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Om Prakash Ambashta vs. Union of India in O.A.No.332/00015 of 2021 dated 04.03.2024; xvii) CAT, Ernakulam Bench, in the case of B.N. Nagraj vs. M/o Environment, Forest And Climate Change in O.A.No.180/00469/2024; and xviii) CAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Ishaq Ahmed Mughal vs. M/o Environment And Forests in O.A.No.228/2020 decided on 22.08.2023.
9. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1, Mr.P.H. Khobragade has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam Etc., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. In Diary No.43488 of 2023 decided on 27.11.2024.
10. The learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, Mrs.Mugdha Chandurkar has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam Etc., (supra).
11. We have heard learned counsel for both Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 the sides at length and carefully perused the documents and pleadings filed on record. We 28 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 have also carefully gone through the various judgments cited by both the sides at the Bar.
12. The undisputed facts are that the applicants were members of State Forest Service and they were eligible to be considered for the vacancy year 2010. However, meetings of the Selection Committees for the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 were not held as provided under the Regulation 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. Thereafter, the meetings of the Selection Committee was held in the year 2012-2013. By the time both the applicants have taken voluntary retirement.
13. It is the case of the applicants that since the vacancy pertains to the year 2010 when they were very much in service and, therefore, they were eligible for promotion from SFoS to IFoS as per Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. Since the respondents have failed to conduct Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: the meetings of Selection Committee in time the Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 applicants cannot be denied the promotion to 29 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 IFoS for the fault of the respondents. The applicants have further submitted that initially their names were not included in the panel. However, at the intervention of the UPSC their names were included in the panel which was approved by the UPSC. Therefore, the names of the applicants could not have been ignored without prior consideration of the UPSC which was a mandatory statutory requirement under the Regulations of 1966. However, the respondent no.1 has denied them promotion on the date of issuing the promotion order on the ground that the applicants were not members of the State Forest Service as they have taken voluntary retirement and, therefore, they could not promoted.
13.1. In view of the above facts, the short issue for our consideration is whether for the vacancy year 2010 when the applicants were very much members of SFoS and were eligible for the promotion to IFoS could have been denied the Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: promotion to IFoS by respondent no.1 on the Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 date of issuing the promotion order on the 30 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 ground that they were not the members of the SFoS.
14. In this regard it will be convenient to refer herein the various judicial pronouncements on the issue before arriving at the decision.
15. In the case of Union of India &Anr. Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors. (supra) wherein the similar issue of promotion to IPS Cadre was involved and by taking the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Vipin Chandra Hiralal Shah, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 721 and Syed Khalid Rizvi vs. Union of India, reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-
"46. In a somewhat similar situation, this Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah - (1996) 6 SCC 721, while construing Regulation 5 of the I.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 held that the insertion of the word 'ordinarily' does not alter the intendment underlying the provision. This Court in that case was considering the provision of Clause (1) of Regulation 5 of Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 Regulations along with other provisions of Regulation 5. The interpretation which this Court gave to the aforesaid two 31 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 Regulations was that the Selection Committee shall meet at an interval not exceeding one year and prepare a list of members who are eligible for promotion under the list. The Court held that this was mandatory in nature.
47. It was urged before this Court that the insertion of the word 'ordinarily' will make a difference. Repelling the said contention, this Court held that the word 'ordinarily' does not alter the underlying intendment of the provision. This Court made it clear that unless there is a very good reason for not doing so, the Selection Committee shall meet every year for making the selection. In doing so, the Court relied on its previous decision in Syed Khalid Rizvi vs. Union of India - 1993 Supp.
(3) SCC 575. In that case the Court was considering Regulation 5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 which also contained the word 'ordinarily'. In that context the word 'ordinarily' has been construed as:
"......since preparation of the select list is the foundation for promotion and its omission impinges upon the legitimate expectation of promote officers for consideration of their claim for promotion as IPS officers, the preparation of the select list must be construed to be mandatory. The Committee should, therefore, meet every year and prepare the select list and be reviewed and revised from time to time as exigencies demand."
16. Further, in the case of Mahesh Chand vs. Union of India (supra) wherein the similar Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 issue of promotion from UPPSC to IASwas involved has held as under:32 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022 "1) The basic grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though he could have been appointed to the Indian Administrative Service cadre of Uttar Pradesh in respect of the year 2006, yet the same did not happen because of belated holding of the selection process by the competent authorities.
2) We are not required to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the name of the petitioner finds mention in the Select List meant for 2006 published on 27.11.2012, but he could not be extended the benefit as he stood superannuated by that time. A similar matter had travelled to this Court in Union of India and Anr. V. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 290 wherein a view was expressed in favour of the respondents after repelling the contentions raised by the Union of India.
In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment, the Government of India vide order dated 25.5.2011 has passed an elaborate order after referring to a passage from the said decision. The order issuing the direction which is essential for the adjudication of the present case reads as follows:
"Now therefore, in pursuance of directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.3.2010 in Civil Appeal No.2651-52 of 2010 (arising out of SLP No.6758-6759/2009) Shri Ram Naval Singh (DOB 2.1.1950) will be deemed to have been appointed to IAS Cadre of UP with all consequential benefits on the basis of inclusion of his name in the select list of 2004 not later than his immediate junior viz Shri Ram Mohan Yadav appointed to IAS on the basis of the same select list of 2004 i.e. 9.12.2010."Ms.Tamta, learned counsel appearing for Union of India is not in a Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: position to dispute the same and, therefore, Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 we direct that the present petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed to Indian Administrative Service, cadre of Uttar 33 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 Pradesh with all consequential benefits on the basis of inclusion of his name in the Select List of 2006, not later than to his immediate junior, namely, Mr.Vinay Priya Dubey, who has been appointed to IAS Cadre on the basis of the same select list of 2006. It is hereby made clear that date of appointment of Mr.Vinay Priya Dubey shall be the governing factor for grant of extension of benefit to the petitioner. The benefits be extended within a period of three months hence".
(Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chand was followed by the CAT, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in the case of Om Prakash Ambashta vs. Union of India in O.A.332/2015 decided on 04.03.2024 in case of Forest Services relating to promotion from SFoS to IFoS and it is held that the said applicant shall be deemed to have been appointed to UP Cadre of the IFoS with all consequential benefits on the basis of inclusion of his name in select list of 2017 and the respondents were directed to extend the consequential benefits to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 copy of this order.
17. In the case of Pramod Babanrao Yadav 34 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 vs. Union of India & Ors., the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Para 13 and 15 recorded as under:-
"13. Mr.Kaushik (who appears for the UPSC) has stated that, in any event, since the petitioner's name has been included in the list of the candidates due for consideration for the Select List of the year 2018, he would certainly be considered as and when the selection Committee / Empanelment Committee Meeting is held, irrespective of the fact that he is due for superannuation on 31.05.2020. He submits that the UPSC shall not be guided by the fact that he would superannuate on 31.05.2020, and the recommendations of the UPSC would be based on the merit evaluation of all the eligible candidates. Thereafter, it would be for the Central Government to make appointments to the IAS of the recommendees".
15. Having said that, since Mr.Kaushik has made the aforesaid statement taken note of hereinabove, in our view, the concern of the petitioner stands addressed. We, therefore, dispose of this petition while taking the statement of Mr.Kaushik on record, which shall continue to bind the UPSC. We are hopeful that the UPSC would hold the Selection Committee Meeting - either face to face, or through video conferencing, within the next three months."
18. On the aforesaid basis, accordingly notional appointment to IAS has been granted to Mr.PramodBabanrao Yadav by Government of India, Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) 35 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 notification dated 03.09.2020.
19. Further, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Kumar Bhagwan Khaire vs. Union of India Thr. Secretary And Ors. (supra), wherein the similar issue of promotion from SCS to the IAS was involved has held as under:-
"If the UPSC finds that the petitioner meets with all the necessary requirements, the UPSC will certainly recommend the name of the petitioner for promoting him to the IAS of the Maharashtra Cadre even if he attains the superannuation age/retires on 31st May, 2021."
(Emphasis supplied) Accordingly notional appointment to IAS granted to Shri K.B. Khaire and Shri S.D. Jadhav vide M/O Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, DoPT notification dated 12th July 2021.
20. The CAT, Chadigarh Bench in the case of Balbir Singh Khoka Vs. M/o Environment And Forests (supra) wherein similar issue of promotion to IFoS was involved has held as under:
"16. If the right to be considered had accrued in a particular year of an officer for induction into IAS or IFS, but Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: the authorities fail to consider such claim Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 and do not discharge their duty as enjoined upon them by law, then wrong done to such an officer can be remedied by only one 36 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 method and that is to direct the concerned respondents to do the needful on the hypothesis that he or she was in service at the relevant point of time. If upon such consideration an officer is found to be suitable for induction into the select list and if his or her turn for appointment comes against an available post in the promotion quota, then he or she would be deemed to have been promoted with effect from the due date and would also be entitled to consequential relief as well".
"18. The delay has taken place on the part of the authorities. Thus, the applicants cannot be made to suffer on the part of the delay caused by the authorities, particularly in view of the principle of deeming fiction that on the relevant date they were in the employment and as such they cannot be denied appointment to IFS. Therefore, the non-grant of appointment to the applicants to IFS, on the indicated premise, which has not been accepted by the courts in the past, is not unsustainable and cannot be approved of by a court of law."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. The CAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Satish Gupta Vs. M/o Environment and Forests (supra) has held as under:-
"5. The retirement of the applicant shall not pose any hurdle for consideration of his case for his induction into IFS".
22. The CAT, Cuttack Bench in the case of Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 H. Maharatha vs State (supra) wherein similar issue of promotion to IFoS was involved has 37 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 held as under:-
"10. The Select List for year 2008A to 2014 having been approved by the UPSC, the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change issued an order dated 6.3.2018 (A/18) containing the names of SFS officers including the applicant for filling up the vacancies under promotion quota in Odisha Cadre of the Indian Forest Service. Following to this, the declaration was obtained from the applicant by the State of Orissa, which was also forwarded to the Government of India. While the matter stood thus, the Government of India issued notification dated 17.05.2018 (A/12) conveying the approval of the President of India for appointment of SFS Officers to IFS in respect of the Select List for the year 2008A to 2014 in exception of the applicant.The reason of the exclusion of the name of the applicant from the purview of Notification dated 17.5.2018, as has been assigned by the Respondent No.1 is that by then the applicant had already retired from service on superannuation and was no longer a Member of the State Forest Service.This plea of the respondent in our considered view is unilateral which does not stand to judicial scrutiny.It is not the case of the respondents, particularly Respondent No. 1 that by the time the Screening Committee Meeting was held on 05.02.2018, applicant's retirement from service on 28.02.2018 was not foreseeable. Despite this his name was recommended by the UPSC for promotion to IFS. Secondly, on the recommendations made by the State Government of Odisha to Government of India, the proposed Selection List was approved by the UPSC in consonance of which, the Government of India issued Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: order dated 6.4.2018 (A/18) wherein the Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 name of the applicant was placed at Sl.No.7. Thereafter, at the instance of Government of India, declaration of the applicant was 38 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 obtained by the State Government and the same was forwarded to the Government of India and as already mentioned above, the Government of India, while issuing Notification dated 17.5.2018 excluded the name of the applicant from promoting him to I.F.S. There is nothing on record to show as to whether the approval of the President of India in respect of promotion of the applicant to I.F.S. had been accorded and if so, whether the Government of India in not promoting the applicant to I.F.S. had acted within its powers, authority and jurisdiction. This apart the Respondents have not brought out anything on record to establish that their action in excluding the name of the applicant from the purview of Notification dated 17.5.2018 is in conformity with the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1966.In view of this, the action of respondents excluding the name of the applicant for promotion to IFS from the purview of Notification dated 17.5.2018 is held unjust and improper.
4) Orders to be examined by Secretary to Government of India (Respondent No.1)."
Accordingly Government of India, M/O Environment, Forest Climate Change issued the notional promotion order dt. 05 February, 2020 in case of all the five officers. (Page 82 of the compilation to the O.A.)
23. Similarly, in the similar case of Baikuntha Bihari Mishra vs. Forest And Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 Environment Deptt. (supra) the CAT, Cuttack Bench has held as under:-39 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022 "6. Although respondent no.1 in his counter has accepted that the name of the applicant was included in the select list for the year 2008-A for promotion to IFS in terms of the minutes of the minutes approved by the UPSC but was not included in the final issued by the Ministry's letter dated 17.05.2018 as at the time of issue of notification the applicant retired from service.But, the aforesaid ground is no more res integra in view of the order passed by the Tribunal on 04.12.2009 in O.A.Nos. 329 to 332 of 2018. This tribunal do not find any substantive ground to differ from the view taken in OAs Nos. 329 to 332 of 2018. Thus, in the aforesaid premises and by applying the doctrine of precedent, it is held that the grounds on which the applicant was denied the promotion, obviously and axiomatically falls flat and, consequently it is directed that, if there is no other impediment, the applicant is entitled to be promoted notionally, to the post of Indian Forest Service with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted to IFS. Accordingly, respondents are directed to issue the consequential orders within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. CAT, Ernakulam Bench in the case of B.N. Nagraj vs. M/o Environment, Forest And Climate Change (supra) wherein similar issue was involved has held as under:-
"11. Basic facts are not in dispute. "The Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: sole question that arises for consideration Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 in both the cases is whether an eligible officer of State Forest Service who retires while being considered for selection 40 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 /appointment to Indian Forest Service and not in the State Forest Service as on the date of issuance of notification appointing him, can be appointed in the Central Service".
16. "Evidently, Regulation 5 lays down the criteria for selection of members to the Indian Forest Service. The term 'substantive' found in Rule 8 has to be understood in the context of the said quoted provisions in Regulations 5(2) and Regulation 5(3). They indicate that 'the person in substantive vacancy' as referred to in the Rule can only be a candidate who is in the State Service as on the prescribed date mentioned in the said Regulations. It clearly indicates that the concerned officer who is selected for appointment to the IFS need only be in the State Service as on the 1st January of the year for which for which the select list is prepared".
28. Having appreciated the entire facts, in the light of the legal position settled in various precedent, it is to be held that the Annexure A12 in OA Nos 469 to the extent of excluding the applicants in that OA from appointment to Indian Forest Service and Annexure A4 in OA No. 470 of 2024 to the extent of excluding the applicant therein from the Indian Forest Service are illegal and contrary to the law."
25. CAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Ishaq Ahmed Mughal Vs. M/0 Environment And Forests (supra)has held as under :
Digitally signed by Hemant
Hemant Anant Mahabal
Location:
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
Mahabal
09:55:46+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1
"7. The Original Application is,
therefore, disposed of with direction to the respondents to take a decision in the 41 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 matter of notional promotion of the applicant to the IFS w.e.f. 1999, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan dated 02.02.2015 in Chhaya Bhatnagar Vs. UOI in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7472/2013. This should be in line with the respondent's earlier decisions dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure-A/4) and 24.01.2020 (Annexure-A/16), following our directions dated 04.12.2018 and 30.09.2019 in OA Nos. 463/2017 and 589/2019. The respondents shall issue orders in compliance of our directions within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
26. Similarly, the Hon'ble Orrisa High Court in the case of Union of India &Anr. Vs. Arjun Behra and Ors. (supra) involving the promotion to the IFoShas held as under:
"The petitioners-Union of India have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 03.07.2023 passed in O.A.No.260/00414 of 2021, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, while quashing the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the authority in Annexure-5 to the said O.A., allowed the O.A. with a direction that opposite party no.1 is entitled to be promoted/appointed notionally to the post of Indian Forest Service with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted to IFS and the consequential order to the effect is directed to be issued within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: order.
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 In the above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order 42 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 dated 03.07.2023 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.260/00414 of 2021. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same accordingly dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
27. A similar issue in the case of promotion from State Civil Service from the Maharashtra State Service to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) arose before Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.833/2022 in the case of Prakash Tukaram Vaichal Vs. Union of India and Others. The Tribunal vide order dated 01.09.2023 in which one of us was Member [Shri Krishna, Member (A)] has held as under:-
"9. It is not in dispute that the vacancies for selection from State Civil Service to IAS of Maharashtra Cadre pertain to year 2020. There were six vacancies. The applicant's name was recommended by the State Government. The Selection Committee convened by UPSC in its meeting held on 17.08.2022 selected the applicant and his name was included at Sl.No.1 in the select list which was duly approved by the UPSC on 23.09.2022. However, while issuing the notification dated 29.02.2022, the respondent No.1 i.e. DOPT has not included the name of the applicant on the ground that he has already superannuated on 28.02.2022 and was not a member of Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal State Civil Service on the date of issue Anant Location:
Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' of notification and, therefore, his name Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 could not be included.43 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022 9.1. The State of Maharashtra in their affidavit dated 27.03.2023 have stated that they have sent a proposal to the UPSC vide their letter dated 29.12.2021 and 11.05.2022. Therefore, they had no role in the notification of the promotion issued by the DOPT.
9.2. The UPSC in their affidavit dated 16.11.2022 have stated that the select list of 2020 prepared by the Selection Committee Meeting held on 17.08.2022 for promotion to the IAS of Maharashtra Cadre against the vacancies for the year 2020 recommended the name of the applicant and his name was included at Sl.No.1 in the select list "unconditionally". The select list was approved by the Commission on 26.09.2022 and notified by the DOPT vide notification dated 29.09.2022. They have further submitted vide para 5 that they have included the name of the applicant for select list of 2020 for promotion to the IAS Cadre unconditionally and the same was approved by the Commission vide letter dated 23.09.2022. They submitted that after select list was approved by the Commission, appointment to the IAS in respect of officers included unconditionally in the select list is made by DOPT and UPSC has no role to play in the appointment of IAS.
9.3. The respondent No.1 i.e. DOPT in their affidavit have stated that the applicant was not appointed as Regulation 9(1) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 states that the appointment of a Member of State Civil Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Service is to be made from the select Anant Location:
Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' list for time being in force. Since the Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 applicant ceased to be a Member of State Civil Service on his superannuation on 44 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022
28.02.2022, his name could not be included in the notification. It was further submitted that the applicant has not challenged the Regulation 9(1) and, therefore, the present OA cannot be allowed without quashing of Regulation 9(1).
10. We find that similar case of Maharashtra State arose for consideration of Hon'ble Principal Bench of CAT Delhi in the case of Jotiba Tukaram Patil &Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. in OA No.100/1330/2020. The Hon'ble Principal Bench vide order dated 02.02.2021 has held as under :
"7. The controversy in this OA is very limited. Rule 8 (3) (a) of IAS Recruitment Rules of 1954 provides for appointment of the officers of the state cadre to IAS by way of promotion. The relevant procedure is stipulated under IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955. For the year 2018, 25 vacancies under this category were identified by the DoP&T. According to the prescribed procedure, a list of officers, three times the number of vacancies is to be considered. In the list of 75 officers prepared in this behalf, the names of the applicants figured at Sl. No.1A and 26 respectively. The Selection Committee met on 09.06.2020 and the names of the applicants figured in the list of selected candidates. That list, in turn, was approved by the State Government on 27.08.2020 and by the DoP&T on 28.08.2020. The issue came only at the stage of final notification. The names of the applicants were not included. Digitally signed by Hemant
Hemant Anant Mahabal
8. It is true that the rules
Location:
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 stipulate that an officer should not have crossed 56 years of age as on 1st January of the year of consideration, 45 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 and must have been in service by the time he is promoted. The applicants did not cross 56 years of age as on 01.01.2018. However, on account of the delay that occurred in the selection process, it so happened that they retired from service on 30.04.2019 and 31.01.2020 respectively.
9. The applicants did not challenge the relevant rules in this behalf.
However, the fact remains that two of their batchmates by name, Shyamsundar Liladhar Patil and Pramod Babbarao Yadav, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition apprehending that their cases may not be considered for promotion on account of superannuation which was impending. The Hon'ble High Court made a clear observation that once they are within the parameters of eligibility by the time, the list was prepared, the mere fact that they attained the age of superannuation in the meanwhile, should not be a factor to deny them promotion. Obviously in compliance with that direction, the respondents included the names of two officers in the notification dated 03.09.2020. The applicants stand on the same footing. The only reason by non inclusion of their names in the final notification list dated 03.09.2020 appears to be that they did not have in their favour, a direction similar to the one in Writ Petition No.3203/2020. However, in matters of this nature, the respondents are required to apply the same parameters to all whether or not they have approached any Court of Law. It was not a relief granted purely personal to the two officers referred Digitally signed by Hemant to above. It was on the principle that Hemant if a candidate was within the range of Anant Mahabal Location:
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 selection, when it commenced; the delay in finalization thereof should not defeat their rights. If we apply 46 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 the same yardstick in the case of the applicants also, they too deserve to be included in the final notification dated 03.09.2020.
10. We, therefore, allow the OA and direct that the names of the applicants shall be included in the final notification of IAS Officers appointed on promotion to the Maharashtra cadre for the year 2018.
This shall be done within two weeks from today. We make it clear that the applicants shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary but they shall be accorded seniority duly taking into account, the place of merit, assigned to them by the Selection Committee. There shall be no order as to costs."
(Emphasis supplied) 10.1. In the above case also the plea was taken by the respondents that the applicant has not challenged Rule 8 (3)
(a) of IAS Recruitment Rules of 1954 which provides for appointment of the officers of the state cadre to IAS by way of promotion. The challenge was similar to that taken by the respondents in this OA by submitting that the applicant has not challenged the Regulation 9(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955.
10.2. We find that the applicant was less than 56 years of age as on 01.01.2020 when the vacancy arose for which he was to be considered. The delay in holding DPC and issue of appointment has not been caused because of fault of the applicant and therefore, he cannot be Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: punished for the delay which has occurred Anant Date: 2025.10.16 Mahabal 09:55:46+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 in the process on which the applicant has no control.47 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022 10.3. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide their judgment dated 21.05.2021 in Writ Petition No.10290/2021 have also examined the similar issue and referring to the order dated 19.05.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.3173/2020 involving a similar issue wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that "UPSC shall not be guided by the fact that the petitioner would superannuate on 31.05.2020, and the recommendations of the UPSC would be based on the merit evaluation of all the eligible candidates" has held that in the event that the petitioner meets all the requirement, his names shall be recommended to the Central Government for being appointed to the IAS, irrespective to the fact that he has already reached the age of superannuation.
10.4. We find that the decision of Principal Bench of CAT referred to in paragraphs Nos.7 to 10 is applicable to the facts of the applicant's case also as that case also pertains to the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, we are bound by the judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Principal Bench in para 9 of the order has been held that the decision on the issue is decision in rem and not in personnem, and, therefore, is applicable to all similar cases.
11. In view of the above facts and judicial decisions on the issue, we are of the view that the OA of the applicant deserves to be allowed. The respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal the applicant in view of the decision of Anant Location:
Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' the Principal Bench of CAT dated Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1
02.02.2021.
48 OA Nos.616/2022
& 617/2022
12. In view of the aforesaid, the OA deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to implement the order and direction as above within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs."
28. We find that the names of the applicant were not initially included in the first list submitted by the office of State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue and Forest and by Office of Principal Conservator of Forest, Maharashtra on the ground that they have retired from service on 01.12.2012 opting for Voluntary retirement. However, in the light of the relevant rules and regulations, the UPSC specifically directed the State of Maharashtra to include the names of the applicants in the list of the officers of State Forest Service, Maharashtra in order to promote them to the Indian Forest Service Cadre as the applicants were very much in service in the year 2010 and had the meeting Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal been held in 2010 they would have been Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 considered by Selection Committee, the names 49 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 of the applicants were included for consideration of Selection Committee for induction to Indian Forest Service even though the meeting was to be held in the year 2012-2013. Undisputedly, the Union Public Service Commission is constituted under Article 315 of the Constitution of India and Article 320 speaks about the functions of the Public Service Commission which are not subject to control or supervision of Union Government being independent constitutional authority and its recommendations are binding on the Central Government.
29. We find that as per the provisions contained in Sub-Regulation 3 of Regulation 7 of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1966, the UPSC had approved the Select List for the year 2010 wherein the names of the applicants were included, consciously keeping in mind that Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal had the meeting been held in the year 2010 as Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 stipulated under the Regulation 5(1) of the 50 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 Rules, applicant would have been inducted in IFS Cadre. The Respondent No.1 was not, therefore, the Competent Authority to change/delete/cull/modify the select list approved by UPSC. Admittedly the names of the applicants were deleted by the Respondent No.1, without obtaining approval from Union Public Service Commission, which is evident from a reply dated 27.02.2014 given by UPSC to RTI query made by applicant No.2 Shri Sunil Banubakode (Annexure-6).It is settled principle of law that "once the select list is published by UPSC, it is final for all purposes and neither the Central Government nor the State Government has any authority to modify the same; as held by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal while deciding O.A.No.744/2013.
30. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment Digitally signed by Hemant of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Hemant Anant Mahabal Location:
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 of India &Anr. Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam etc. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 51 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 Para 16 has held that once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a golden handshake between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules. It was held that the respondents were rightly not considered in the DPC in 2012 since he was no longer in service at the relevant point of time.
31. We find that the facts of the above case are totally different than the facts at hand as in the case under consideration. The applicants were already considered by the UPSC they were found fit for promotion and their names were deleted from the promotion list without consultation of UPSC which was in violation of rules.
32. The respondents have placed reliance on the another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of West Bengal Hemant Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: &Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi&Ors. (supra), Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 wherein it was held that a promotion is 52 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. It was held that no retrospective promotion can be granted as the applicant could not assume the duties. We find that the above judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the case at hand as the applicants were already recommended for promotion by the UPSC, as they were found fit as per the rules and the delay has occurred on the part of Respondent No.1. The applicants are not seeking any seniority vis-à-vis against any other officer but seeking only notional promotion, therefore, the question of assuming the duties does not arise.
33. In view of the above facts and the judicial decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and the various Benches of this Tribunal, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. We are of the view that the applicants could not have been Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Anant Mahabal Anant Location:
Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' denied the promotion for the vacancy year Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 2010 as they were entered in service at that 53 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 time. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 is directed to promote both the applicants on the notional basis from the date when their immediate junior was promoted with all consequential benefits. The above order should be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
34. In view of above, both the Original Applications are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
35. All pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member (J) Member (A).
H
Digitally signed by Hemant
Hemant Anant Mahabal
Location:
Anant Date: 2025.10.16
09:55:46+05'30'
Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1 54 OA Nos.616/2022 & 617/2022 Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Anant Mahabal Location: Anant Date: 2025.10.16 09:55:46+05'30' Mahabal Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.2.1