Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
C.K. Antony Ifs (Retd.) vs State Of Kerala on 31 August, 2015
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 661 of 2012
Monday, this the 31st day of August, 2015
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs. P. Gopinath, Administrative Member
C.K. Antony IFS (Retd.), Aged 73 years,
S/o. Late C.D. Kuruvilla, Residing at Chakiath House,
Plot No. M/8, Changapuzha Nagar PO, Kalamassery,
Kochi - 682 033. .. . . . . Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
Versus
1. State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary,
Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram,
Pin - 695 001.
2. Principal Secretary, Forest and Wild Life Department,
Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin-695 001.
3. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Head Quarters,
Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin-695 001.
4. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government
of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Paryavaran Bhavan,
CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110 003. . . . . . Respondents
[By Advocate : Ms. Rekha Vasudevan & Mr. Rajeev, GP (R1-3) &
Mr. T.M. Nellimoottil - Not present]
This application having been finally heard on 12.8.2015, the Tribunal
on 31.08.2015, delivered the following:
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member -
This application is filed by the applicant to set aside Annexure A-3 order dated 10.11.2011 as per which the claim made by the applicant for promotion to selection grade was declined since the applicant was not eligible for promotion to Indian Forest Service (in short IFS) cadre from the select list of 1987.
2. Shorn off the details, the case of the applicant is stated in brief as follows.
2.1. The applicant entered into service as Forest Range Officer on 1.11.1962 . He was promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF for short) with effect from 4.7.1977. On completion of 8 years service as ACF the applicant became eligible for promotion to IFS and thus he was included in the select list of 1987. As per order dated 23.9.1992 the applicant was appointed in the cadre of Junior Administrative Grade with effect from 1.6.1992 vide Annexure A-1. The applicant was thus entitled to get selection grade on completion of 13 years of service in the IFS. The year of allotment was 1983. The applicant retired from service on 31.8.1996. OA 521/2011 was filed by the applicant for a direction to the respondents to grant selection grade with effect from 1.1.1996. A reply statement was filed in that case by the respondents on 25.11.2011 in which they produced an order dated 10.11.2011. The applicant was then kept informed of the reasons for not granting the Selection Grade. Hence the applicant withdrew OA 521/2011 with permission to file a fresh OA (vide Annexure A-2). The request for grant of Selection Grade was declined as per Annexure A-3 dated 10.11.2011. The applicant's pension was fixed in the new pay scale of Rs. 12000-375-16500/- though he was eligible to get Selection Grade in the scale of Rs. 14300-400-18300. A representation dated 16.11.2009 was submitted by him (vide Annexure A-4). It was based on that representation Annexure A-3 order was passed. It was stated that as per revised seniority list the ranking of the applicant was much lower. It is also stated that the review selection committee which met on 17.1.2000 reviewed the select list from 1985-1995 and found the applicant not eligible for promotion to IFS from the select list of 1987. The applicant was never put on notice of the revision of the Seniority List or change in the position of the applicant in the Seniority List at any time. Even a copy of Annexure A-3 was not served on the applicant but he came to know only when it was produced along with reply statement filed in OA 521/2011. A letter was sent by the 3 rd respondent to the 1st respondent (vide Annexure A-5) in which it is stated that the applicant had been in the IFS with the year of allotment as 1989 and that he retired from service on 31.8.1996. With reference to the year of allotment the applicant has put in 13 years of service. The applicant was denied the selection grade without intimating any reason for not considering the applicant for the Selection Grade. An officer of the junior administrative grade is eligible for appointment on completion of 13 years of service. The decision of the Supreme Court in C.K Antony v. B. Muraleedharan & Ors. reported in 1998 SCC (L&S) 1624 has no bearing on the rank held by the applicant as he was appointed to the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forest (in short ACF) from the select list prepared by DPC in accordance with rules. The revised seniority list of ACF as on 1.5.1978 and of subsequent years up to 1.5.1986 was published as per GO dated 20.7.1996. In that list the direct recruits came to be appointed as Probationary Assistant Conservator of Forests in 1981, 1982 and 1986 and were assigned seniority over the applicant. However, the change in the seniority and rank in the cadre of ACF could not have affected the applicant as by that time he was selected and appointed to IFS on 28.2.1995. The first respondent cannot deny the benefits of selection grade to the applicant and as such Annexure A-3 order is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
3. Respondents filed reply statement refuting the allegations made by the applicant and contends that the claim made by the applicant is not sustainable in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Appeal filed by him against the judgment of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal. Since there was a correction in the OP it was subsequently corrected and Annexure R1(a) was issued. The applicant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for in this application.
4. The applicant admittedly retired from service on 31.8.1996. Annexure A-4 is the representation given by the applicant on 16.11.2009 to the Chief Secretary to the Government contending that he retired as an IFS officer of Kerala, the year of allotment of IFS being 1983 and that he was appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade as per order dated 29.9.1993. Thus according to the applicant he had completed 13 years of service as on 1.6.1996 i.e. nearly three months prior to his retirement and as such he is entitled to be given selection grade and to grant consequential benefits including pensionary benefits.
5. Annexure A-4 was submitted by him more than 13 years after his retirement. Annexure A-5 is the letter sent from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to the Chief Secretary on 5.9.2002 stating therein that a representation received from the applicant was forwarded to that office. This has been produced by the applicant to contend that the covering letter shows that the applicant had put in 13 years of service with reference to his year of allotment. Annexure A-5 is a letter sent by the applicant to the Chief Secretary where he has stated that he was appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade as per proceedings dated 29.9.1993. Annexure A-3 is the proceedings of the Chief Secretary to the Government as per which the applicant was informed that the applicant was appointed to IFS from the Select List of 1987 and that too it was provisional subject to final judgment in OP 5238/2007 (the number of OP was wrongly typed as 5328/2007). The applicant was also informed that the High Court had set aside the Seniority List and directed the respondents to prepare a revised seniority list of ACF as on 1.5.1978 and accordingly a revised Seniority List was published as per GO (R1) 282/1996F&WLD dated 20.7.1996 and later it was finalized as per GO dated 28.4.1999. Though Writ Appeals were filed against the judgment of the Single Judge in OP 5238/2007 those Writ Appeals were dismissed by High Court. Though that was taken up by the applicant and other aggrieved parties before the Supreme Court the judgment of the High Court, confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench, was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Much has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondents did not apply their mind while Annexure A-3 order was passed. Very serious critical comment was made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondents were stated to have been persuaded by the judgment of the High Court in 'OP 5328/1987' which is seen referred to in Annexure A-3, and argued that OP 5328/1987 was filed by one Ali Baba against the Government and others officers and private parties which was a matter pertaining to the Land Acquisition. It is inconceivable why the applicant and the learned counsel also ventured so much to produce Annexure A-7 and to contend that OP 5328/1987 was pertaining to some other matter filed by some other persons. It is pertinent to note that the applicant himself was the 7th respondent in OP 5238/1987. The contention raised by him was negatived by the learned Single Judge. He filed appeal before the Division Bench as Writ Appeal 878/1994. It is specifically noted therein that Writ Appeal 878/1994 was filed by the additional 7 th respondent in OP 5238/1987. In paragraph 14 of that judgment it was specifically mentioned that the additional 7th respondent in OP 5238/1987 Shri C.K. Antony is the appellant in WA 878/1994. The applicant wanted to beguile the Court, by contending that the respondents had relied upon some other judgments. It did not occur to the applicant or to the counsel that it was a typing error that occurred in Annexure A-3 where, instead of 5238/1987 it was typed as 5328/1987. It will go unnoticed by anybody unless it is so specifically pointed out to the party that the number is wrong. Even that mistake has been projected by the applicant to contend that the respondents did not venture to go through the records correctly and properly. That shows the manner in which the applicant has approached this court, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits. It is also worthwhile to note that in the reply statement filed by the first respondent it was specifically stated that the number of the OP mentioned in Annexure A- 3 was wrongly typed as 5328/1987 instead of 5238/1987 and so another modified letter dated 18.9.2012 [Annexure R1(a)] showing the correct number as OP 5238/1987 was sent to the applicant. Still the applicant did not consider it inappropriate to project that mistake as a ground to file this OA. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, it was only by jumbling of figures 23 as 32; while typing the mistake occurred, which usually may go unnoticed, while sending such letters as Annexure A-3.
7. The contention that is vehemently advanced by the learned counsel for applicant is that he (the applicant) was totally unaware of the proceedings of the respondents in causing revision of the seniority list and that he was not given notice at all. The applicant feigns ignorance of the judgment of the Division Bench (in the WA 878/1994 filed by himself) which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In spite of the adverse decisions rendered by the High Court on the original side and by the appellate court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the applicant shows the temerity to contend that he was totally unaware of all these things. The judgment in Writ Appeal 878/1994 filed by the applicant C.K. Antony which was considered along with Writ Appeal 1193/94 and Writ Appeal 1309/1994 was disposed of by a common judgment. It is a reported judgment, reported in ILR 1995 (2) Kerala 807 (Antony C.K v. Muraleedharan and others). As stated earlier in paragraph 14 it was specifically noted that the additional 7 th respondent in OP 5238/1987 - Shri C.K. Antony is the appellant in Writ Appeal 874/1994.
8. The first sentence in paragraph 14 would show that for the purpose of disposing of the Writ Appeals referred to above, the Hon'ble Division Bench considered WA 878/1994 as the main case. That was the appeal filed by the applicant herein. The petitioner in OP 5238/87 was Mr. B. Muraleedharan who was directly recruited to the post of ACF. He was appointed as a probationer on 1.5.1978. He joined the service on 1.5.1978. He was advised by the UPSC for training on 31.5.1976. He underwent training for two years in the State Forest Service College. He claimed seniority over Shri Babu George and so many other officers. In OP 5238/1987 the Single Judge as per judgment dated 17.6.1994 directed the respondents 1 to 3 therein namely the State, the Secretary to Government, Forest and Chief Conservator of Forest to prepare a comprehensive seniority list showing at least the position from 1.5.1978 which would show the rank or position assigned to the officers. The respondents therein were further directed to revise that list in accordance with the increase in the strength and to update the same. Confirmation and promotion was directed to be regulated in accordance with the said Seniority List. The direction so issued by the single judge was questioned in the Writ Appeals mentioned earlier. A direction was issued by the Division Bench on 28.9.1994 to respondents 1 to 3 to prepare a Seniority List of officers in the cadre of ACF as on 1.5.1978 in accordance with law and taking note of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court governing the field. Pursuant thereto a list was produced in Court along with a memo by the learned Government Pleader. That list contained names of 54 officers. The Writ Petitioner B. Muraleedharan was shown as 54 th man. It was pointed out that the strength of the cadre of ACF in Kerala as on 1.5.1978 was only 29. Hence the High Court made a critical comment and questioned as to, under what circumstance the respondents could prepare a Seniority List of 54 officers in the cadre of ACF as on 1.5.1978. Later again a list was submitted along with an affidavit where also 54 persons were shown as ACF as on 1.5.78. It was found that the said list showed Shri C.K. Antony (the applicant herein) who was the appellant in WA 878/1994, having been assigned rank No.51. The date on which he was promoted to the post of ACF was shown therein as 3.9.1997 and he was stated to have been regularized in that cadre on 4.9.1997. The respondents could not explain how these things could happen; namely, how the applicant could be ranked as 51 in the IFS list as on 1.5.1978 when the cadre strength was only 29. In paragraphs 19 & 20 it was observed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal judgment referred to above as under:
'19. In paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit dated, 31st December, 1994, the Chief Conservator of Forests (Protection) stated that the sanctioned strength of Assistant Conservator of Forests as on 1 st May 1978 is 29; 14 of which are permanent and 15 are temporary. While we come to the additional affidavit dated 10th January 1995 sworn by the same Chief Conservator of Forests (Protection), what we see is that he asserts that on 1st May 1978 there were 29 cadre posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests in the Department. From this it may lead to an inference that the cadre strength of Assistant Conservators of Forests as on 1 st May 1978 was 29. Actually this stand taken by him in the additional affidavit, dated 10th January, 1995 is not correct. As on 1st May 1978, the strength of the cadre, permanent pots of Assistant Conservators, was only 14 and not 29 as is now stated.
20. From the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the strength of Assistant Conservators of Forests, permanent cadre, has been 14 as on 1st May, 1978. As on 1st May 1978, from exhibit P-10 order referred to earlier, it is evident that respondents 4 to 7 were only Rangers.
They were not regularly promoted to the cadre of Assistant Conservators of Forests. Their promotion to the cadre was purely under rule 9 (a)(i) of the General Rules. That promotion can by no stretch of imagination confer on them any right to the post, namely the post of Assistant Conservators of Forests.' (7th respondent therein is the applicant herein - C.K. Antony).
9. It may be remembered that Respondent No. 7 in OP 5238/87 is the applicant herein, who was the appellant in Writ Appeal 878/1994. Referring to the applicant herein and others it was observed by the High Court that they could never be allowed to have their probation to commence from a date anterior to 1.5.1978 in view of the specific provision contained in Rule 18 (a) of the General Rules. It was also observed that as per the special rules the ratio between direct recruits and those recruited by transfer is 3:2 and when the cadre strength of ACF was 14 as on 1.5.1978 there could be ten direct recruits and those direct recruits could be appointed only against substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre. So much so, the direct recruits to the cadre of ACF, who were in service as on 1.5.1978 should have been adjusted against the 14 permanent posts. It was observed that neither the general rules nor the special rules allow the Government to push them down below the 14 permanent posts and that as on 1.5.78 as against the 14 permanent posts, there could be ten direct recruits mentioned above and another 4 promotees. It was specifically said that not even a 5th promotee could be ranked against any permanent cadre post even as the 15 th man in the seniority list of ACFs as on 1.5.1978. It was already said that the rank of the applicant was 51 in the list of 54 officers submitted before the High Court. It is also important to note paragraph 17 of the judgment in WA wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court as under:
'17. Before proceeding further, it will be quite interesting to note Exhibit P-10 proceedings issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Thiruvananthapuram on 15th November, 1979. By this proceedings certain, Forest Rangers were given promotion as Senior Grade Rangers with effect from 1st July, 1978. That order states that it was in implementation of the direction given in G.O. (P) 860/78/Fin., dated 16th December, 1978 Senior Grade in the scale of Rs. 650-1150/- has been allowed in the ratio of 1:3 between Senior Grade Rangers and Rangers. Babuji A. George, K.G. George and P.T. Joseph are serial Nos. 19, 20 and 22 in that order who got the benefit of Senior Grade. That order further gives 1st July, 1978 as the date from which promotion to the cadre of Senior Grade Range Officer is given to these officers. These officers who were Rangers and who got promotion to the cadre of Senior Grade Range Officers with effect from 1 st July, 1978, are now shown in the present list produced before this court as having been appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forests in December, 1974 and January, 1975. Learned Government Pleader has not brought before us any rule or decision of this Court which could confer on them such a benefit.'
10. Therefore, it is quite clear that the applicant and others were given promotion to the cadre of Senior Grade Range Officer only on or w.e.f. 1.7.1978 and it was such an applicant who was shown to have been given or promoted to ACF w.e.f. 1.5.1978, the learned Government Pleader rightly submits. As stated earlier the applicant himself challenged the judgment in Writ Appeal, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal which is also a reported judgment C.K. Antony Vs. B. Muraleedharan & Ors. reported in 1998 SCC (L&S) 1624.
11. The question for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the appellants therein (including the applicant herein) were appointed before 1.5.1978 and whether such claim is sustainable under the relevant Kerala Forest Service Special Rules and also Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. It was pointed out that the fact that the seniority of the respondent (B. Muraleddharan) who was the writ petitioner and who was the respondent in the Writ Appeal has to be reckoned on and from 1.5.78 was not controverted. The case of the directly recruited ACFs was that the appointments of the appellants before the Supreme Court, if any, prior to 1.5.1978 were all under Rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules and the same cannot be taken into account for the purpose of inter-se seniority. It is not necessary to dwell much on the seniority issue here since that has already become final by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was observed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 7 as under:-
'7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The bone of contention of the appellants is that they were appointed long prior to the appointments of the above said direct recruits and, therefore, they must be given seniority over and above the said direct recruits. It is true that the appellants were appointed earlier in point of time to the appointments of the direct recruits. But the point is that they were not appointed in accordance with the rules in the sense that they were not appointed against the permanent vacancies intended for recruits by transfer. They were all appointed temporarily as a stopgap arrangement. As a matter of fact, before the Division Bench of the High Court the State was called upon to produce the seniority list and also the cadre strength of ACF. . . . . . . . . . . . ' The observations made by the the Division Bench of High Court in paragraphs 19 and 20 were extracted by the Supreme Court. It was further observed in paragraph 8 as under:
'8. One other interesting aspect noticed by the High Court was that by proceedings dated 15.11.1979 the appellants were given promotion as Senior Grade Rangers w.e.f. 1.7.1978. If this be the position on 1.7.1978, the claim of the appellants that they were appointed as ACFs prior to 1.5.1978 falls to the ground. These proceedings dated 15.11.1979 have been noticed by the High Court and it supports the case of the direct recruits that the appointments of the appellants prior to 15.11.1979 were all temporary or stopgap arrangements. They cannot, therefore, claim seniority over the direct recruits who were regularly appointed in accordance with the rules. . . . . . . .'
12. The contention raised by the applicant who was the appellant before the Supreme Court and other appellants was that though the appointment of the appellants therein were temporary, the Government had regularized those appointments prior to the appointments of the direct recruits and therefore they are entitled to claim seniority over the direct recruits. The Supreme Court found it unable to agree with the contention, as any appointment/regularization contrary to the rules, which would prejudice the rights of direct recruits cannot be sustained. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the General principles of law stands applicable to every person irrespective of the fact whether he is a party to the earlier order or not. The observation made by the Supreme Court in another judgment that as and when the direct recruitment has been made the direct recruits are entitled to placement of their seniority into the vacancies reserved for them as per the ratio and the seniority which determined as per the rules within the respective quota. Similarly when the promotees came to be promoted in accordance with the rules in excess of their quota the Supreme Court held in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India - 1993 SCC (L&S) 694 that the promotees in excess of the quota cannot be given seniority from the respective dates of their promotion and they have to be considered only from the respective dates on which their respective quota is available. That decision was followed by the Supreme Court in other cases as well.
Following the decision in Keshav Chandra Joshi the contention raised by the appellants therein (including the applicant herein) was tuned down. It was specifically noticed by the Supreme Court that the appellants therein were appointed on the relevant dates in excess of their quota.
13. It is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeal on 17.3.1995. It was thereafter the seniority was revised as per GO dated 20.7.1996, as stated in Annexure A3.
14. It was specifically stated by the respondents in the reply statement that the only ground in the new OA is that OP No. 5328/1987 referred to in the impugned order relates to a land acquisition case. When such a contention was raised, the respondents understood that it was mistakenly stated as OP 5328/1987 instead of OP 5238/1987 which was a typographical error. It was stated by the respondents that unfortunately the applicant took that mistake as the main ground in the OA. As has been rightly commented upon by the learned Government Pleader, the applicant had earlier filed OA 521/2011 in which the order relating to the revised seniority was mentioned wherein the OP number was also referred. Hence the applicant got that OA withdrawn and then filed the present OA as if the typographical error in noting the number of the Writ Petition can be a foundation for filing a fresh case.
15. Learned Government Pleader would submit that though 10.11.2011 the date on which Annexure A-3 was disposed of may be taken as a ground to contend that OA is not barred by limitation in view of Section 21(a), the fact remains that the applicant retired from service on 31.8.1996. The applicant was a party to the Writ Petition as 7 th respondent. He was the appellant before High Court in the Writ Appeal and he was also the appellant before the Supreme Court. He was well aware of the fact that his plea of seniority and the plea that he must be deemed to have been promoted to IFS on 1.5.1978 was totally declined by all the courts. It was even commented upon that the applicant was nowhere in the picture since even according to the ranked list produced by the respondents he was only 51 and the post/vacancy for promotees was only 4. The respondents have clearly stated that pursuant to the direction issued by the Single Bench which was confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, revised seniority list was prepared in 1996 and it was finalized as per GO dated 23.4.1999. Since the applicant had by then retired, on 31.8.1996, the contention that he was not informed of the revised seniority list cannot be accepted for a moment. It is not a case where the applicant was singled out. All officers who could see their place in the seniority list as on 1.5.1978 was found to be ineligible for lack of posts and so the order of promotion was held illegal by the High Court and Supreme Court. Thus, the respondents were directed to revise the seniority list.
16. Now it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that an OA 779/2000 was filed by some officers of the ACF and in that case, similar orders issued by the respondents were set aside. It is not known how the applicant can rely upon Annexure A-6 to get over the binding judgment passed against him by the Single Judge, by the Division Bench and also by the Supreme Court. The applicants in Annexure A-6 were not parties to any of the proceedings which were pending before the High Court or Supreme Court. It was also observed by this Tribunal in Annexure A-6 that there was no mention of the seniority or anything of that sort so far as the case of the applicants therein was concerned. Therefore, Annexure A-6 is absolutely of no relevance to the facts of this case.
17. The categoric finding entered by the Division Bench which was affirmed by the Supreme Court is that the applicant was nowhere in the picture as on 1.5.1978, the fact that he was promoted as Senior Grade Forest Range Officer only in July, 1978 was taken note of for that purpose. It is in that line the seniority list was prepared by the respondents.
18. The very fact that the applicant has moved this Tribunal after about 16 years of his retirement from service itself will expose the fallacy of the case put forward by him. According to learned Government Pleader a representation was submitted by the applicant after about 16 years of retirement, contending that he is entitled to Selection Grade etc., only as a subtle device contrived at by him to get over the plea of limitation. Though the Hon'ble High Court held that the application is not barred by limitation, since it was filed within one year from Annexure A-3 order, still the fact remains that the applicant approached the Tribunal after about 16 years pretending to be ignorant of the decisions rendered against him by the Single Bench, Division Bench and by the Supreme Court. That also should be taken note of, the learned Government Pleader submits.
19. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the applicants that as per order dated 23.9.1992 the applicant who was the third man was appointed to Junior Administrative Grade w.e.f. 1.6.1992. It has already been said that appointing the applicant and others as Junior Administrative Grade will not in any way confer on them any right since their appointment to the post of ACF itself was subject to the final out come of the Writ Petition pending before the High Court. Since the claim made by the applicant and others was found to be totally unmerited, the revised seniority list was directed to be prepared by the High Court and as such the question of his appointment to the Junior Administrative Grade w.e.f.1.6.1992 is inconsequential and cannot be taken into account at all, since the very edifice of his case is seen smashed to smithereens.
20. The learned Government Pleader would submit that since the applicant retired from service on 31.8.1996 just a few months after the Supreme Court verdict the Government did not think of reverting the applicant and to take further action in the matter. Only because the respondents/Government were lenient to the applicant not to affect his pay and allowances granted to him no action in that line was taken but the applicant became emboldened to file this OA after about 16 years forgetting for a moment that he was no where in the picture as on 1.5.1978 or even thereafter, as has been held by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The conferment of Selection grade would arise only if he had completed 13 years in the IFS cadre. The observation contained in Annexure A-1 made by a Clerk or an officer of the Forest Department that the applicant was an IFS officer of 1983 batch mentioned therein cannot be taken advantage of by the applicant in view of the fact that the effect of all those orders was taken away by the judgments of the High Court, which was later confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1995. It seems that the applicant wanted to beguile the Court by placing those orders by totally disregarding the fact that all those contentions raised by him were negatived by the High Court and Supreme Court as if the officer of that Department can set at naught the binding verdict of the High Court and Supreme Court. Government should not have shown undue leniency in such matters, the respondents now feel. Since his very appointment to the IFS as on 1.5.1978 at a time when there was no vacancy at all, falls to the ground and when he was the 51 st man when the vacancy was only 4, nothing can be built by the applicant on such fallacious premise. Since the appointment to the IFS was provisional and subject to the outcome of the judgment of the High Court and since the High Court directed a revised seniority list to be prepared because of the fact that the appointment of the applicant and others to the IFS was against the rules, the applicant can not claim any relief when ultimately the decision was rendered against him. Being a party to the proceedings through out, he cannot now turn around and re-agitate the concluded issue. The fact that no separate notice was issued to him after the revised final list when it was published in 1999, will not in any way confer on the applicant any right to get the selection grade as claimed by him in this application. It was specifically stated by the respondents in Annexure A-3 that granting of selection grade to the applicant would tantamount to violating the decisions rendered by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Even other wise, the applicant is not entitled to get selection grade since the period of 13 years has not been completed after the actual date of his appointment to the IFS which as per the final list took place only in 1999 though against the select list of 1987.
21. It was specifically stated by the respondents that as per the revised seniority list the applicant was much lower in rank. Since the earlier seniority list stood cancelled in view of the fact that a revised seniority list was published, the applicant can lay no claim on the non-extant list which stood reviewed and superseded by the list prepared based on the judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court.
22. In the rejoinder also the applicant contended that 'he was conferred with IFS in the year 1983' and he very much relied upon Annexure A-6. As has been said earlier, the applicants in Annexure A-6 were not parties to the Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and the Civil Appeal mentioned earlier. So far as the applicant herein is concerned there is a binding judgment against him rendered by the High Court and the Supreme Court. A fallacious statement is seen made by the applicant that there was not a single judgment against the applicant. That itself shows the temerity of the applicant to make false statement before the Court. The fact that the applicants in Annexure A-6 were granted some relief pertaining to their seniority and that the Writ Petition which was stated to have been filed against the same was dismissed is no ground to re-open the issue which was concluded by the judgment of the High Court and the Supreme Court so far as the applicant is concerned. The fact that the applicant has come to the court with this application after about 16 years of his retirement itself will unfold the fallacy of the case put forward by him, the learned Government Pleader submits.
23. Suffice it to say, the whole case put forward by the applicant is found to be totally fallacious. Hence he is not entitled to get the reliefs claimed in this Original Application. It is hence dismissed. No order as to costs.
(P. GOPINATH) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SA