Madras High Court
D.Mahendra Prabhu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 July, 2017
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.(MD) Nos.496 of 2015 and 2695 & 13015 of 2016
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 in W.P.(MD)No.496 of 2015
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2380 and 2381 of 2016
in W.P.(MD)No.2695 of 2016
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.9827, 9828, 11736 and 11389 of 2016 and 1607 and 2955 of 2017
in W.P.(MD)No.13015 of 2016
W.P.(MD)No.496 of 2015:
D.Mahendra Prabhu .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
St. George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Finance,
St. George Fort,
Chennai.
3.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Environment and Forest,
St. George Fort,
Chennai.
4.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Head of the Forest Force,
Panagal Buildings, Saidapet,
Chennai ? 14.
5.The Principal and Conservator of Forests,
Tamil Nadu Forest Training Colleges,
Vaigai Dam,
Theni District.
6.The District Forest Officer,
Velunachiar Building,
Dindigul Division,
Dindigul District.
7.The District Forest Officer,
Salem Division,
Salem District.
8.The Conservator of Forests,
Salem Circle,
Salem ? 8.
9.P.Sampantha Moorthy
10.N.Samykannu
11.Ramakrishnan
12.Sundaram
13.The Accountant General [GSSA],
Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,
Lekha Pariksha Bhavan,
361, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai ? 18. .. Respondents
[R13 impleaded vide order, dated 20.01.2017,
made in W.M.P.(MD)No.4579 of 2016]
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the fourth respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A.Aa
1/39770/2013, dated 23.12.2014 and quash the same as illegal and further
direct the respondents 3 and 4 to prepare fair seniority for the post of
Forest Watchers based on G.O.Ms.No.64 E & F (F2) Department, dated 08.03.1999
and by reversing 171 persons and others who were appointed based 171 persons
illegal appointment in the Forest Department and made appointment and
promotion based on the fresh seniority list and consequently, direct the
respondents 2 and 3 to recover all the monetary benefits disbursed to the
ineligible persons.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan
^For R1 to R5, R7 &
R8 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
Additional Government Pleader
For R6 : No Appearance
For R9 : Mr.Pala.Ramasamy
For R10 & R11 : Mr.R.Rengaramanujam
For R12 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
W.P.(MD)No.2695 of 2016:
D.Mahendra Prabhu .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Chief Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Government,
St. George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Government,
Department of Environment and Forests,
St. George Fort,
Chennai.
3.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Head of the Forest Force,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records
pertaining to the impugned notification issued by the third respondent, vide
his proceedings in Ref.No.AB1/32897/2015, dated 02.02.2016 and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P.(MD)No.13015 of 2016:
1.K.Balakrishnan
2.M.Vivekananthan
3.M.Palanichamy
4.P.Shankar
5.P.Bhuvaneswaran
6.A.Natarajan
7.R.Karthikeyan .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Environment and Forests,
St. George Fort,
Chennai ? 14.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Maligai,
Chennai.
3.Sampantha Moorthy
4.S.Jayarajan
5.N.Ramachandran
6.J.Pandi
7.S.Udayar
8.C.Samikkannu
9.K.Nataraj
10.T.Pal Pandi
11.P.Sethu Narayanan
12.A.Antonysamy
13.S.Peter
14.P.Shanmugam
15.A.Tamilmaran
16.S.Robert Kennedy
17.K.Samikkannu
18.R.Kothandaraman
[R4 to R18 are impleaded vide order
dated 07.11.2016, made in
W.M.P.(MD)No.15077 of 2016]
19.M.Subbaiah
20.K.Vetrivel
21.S.Arunkumar
[R19 to R21 are impleaded vide order
dated 20.01.2017, made in
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17558 of 2016 and
612 and 613 of 2017]
22.P.Periasamy
23.K.Thirugnanasambantham
24.S.Anbumani
25.C.Sawminathan
26.A.Panneerselvam
27.S.Gnanasambantham
28.C.Sundarrajan
29.A.Rajendran
30.P.Selvam
31.P.Selventhiran
32.S.Saravanan
33.K.Muthurengan
34.R.Rajamanickam
35.C.Manickam
36.N.Ramasamy
37.C.Rajagopal
38.C.Balakrishnan
39.D.Jeyanthi
40.A.Manickam
41.O.Selvaraj
42.M.Ramadoss
43.V.Perumal
44.M.Subramanian .. Respondents
[R22 to R44 are impleaded vide order
dated 14.06.2017 made in
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1510 to 1521 of 2017)
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the second respondent's proceedings in
Ref.No.AB1/32897/2015, dated 02.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal and
further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to prepare a fair seniority panel for
the post of Forester.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.C.Swamy
For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Ms.Selvi George
for Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
For R4 to R19 : Mr.V.Sitharanjandass
For R20 & R21 : Mr.M.Muthugeethayan
for Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan
For R22 to R44 : Mr.M.Venkatesan
:COMMON ORDER
W.P.(MD)No.496 of 2015 has been filed by one D.Mahendra Prabhu, challenging the impugned proceedings of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, in Na.Ka.No.A.Aa 1/39770/2013, dated 23.12.2014, to quash the same as illegal with a further direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to prepare a fair seniority list for the post of Forest Watchers based on G.O.(Ms)No.64 Environment and Forests (F2) Department, dated 08.03.1999, by reversing 171 persons and others, who were appointed illegally in the Forest Department and made appointment and promotion based on the fresh seniority list and also for a consequential direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to recover all the monetary benefits disbursed to the ineligible persons.
2.W.P.(MD)No.2695 of 2016 has been filed by the very same petitioner, viz., D.Mahendra Prabhu, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned notification issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, vide proceedings, in Ref.No.AB1/32897/2015, dated 02.02.2016, and quash the same.
3.W.P.(MD)No.13015 of 2016 has been filed by seven persons challenging the proceedings in Ref.No.AB1/32897/2015 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, dated 02.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal with a further direction to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to prepare a fair seniority panel for the post of Forester.
4.Mr.M.C.Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.13015 of 2016 would submit that the petitioners were appointed as Forest Guards by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, by direct recruitment through the Employment Exchange in the year 2008 on the basis of the minimum qualification fixed by the Government, i.e., +2 pass with subjects like, Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology and Mathematics. While they are anxiously waiting for promotion to the post of Forester, the impugned order dated 02.02.2016, has been passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests [Head of the Department], Chennai, preparing a list of Forest Guards with Driving Licence, Members of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and Assistant Draughtsman in the Forest Department fit for promotion to the category of Forester for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, who are all qualified upto 15.08.2015. When the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules specifically mentions that 40% of the vacancies arising in the category of Foresters shall be filled up by direct recruitment; 55% by promotion of Forest Guards; 4% by recruitment by transfer from the members of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service working in Forest Department and 1% by promotion from the category of Assistant Draughtsman working in the Forest Department, in respect of Forest Guards, a specific qualification has been mentioned stating that the Forest Guards, who have put in 8 years of service as Forest Guards will be considered as eligible candidates to be included in the Panel fit for promotion to the post of Forester. While so, some of the respondents, who have not even acquired 8 years of service in the post of Forest Guard, are going to be given promotion to the post of Forester, resulting deprivation of the petitioners' chances of promotion to the post of Forester. Therefore, such move shall not be allowed to take place, failing which, the petitioners would be put to grave prejudice.
5.Adding further, Mr.M.C.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.13015 of 2016 contended that only the persons, who are brought into regular establishment alone are entitled to claim seniority for the next promotion. Moreover, the list prepared pursuant to G.O.(Ms)No.64 Environment and Forests (F2) Department, dated 08.03.1999, was only for the purpose of giving life security for the persons working on daily wage basis/consolidated basis and give preference to them for absorbing them into the regular establishment and their seniority in the regular establishment can be reckoned only from the date of absorption in the regular establishment and not from the date of their engagement on daily wages. Therefore, as per the Service Rules, only persons served as Forest Guards for 8 years are liable to be considered for the next promotion as Forester. The official respondents should consider only such of those Forest Guards, who have rendered actual satisfactory service of 8 years, for promotion to the post of Forester.
6.In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Madalaimuthu and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2006 (6) SCC 558, and contended that seniority of a person appointed temporarily to a particular post without recourse to the recruitment rules, can be counted only from the date on which his services were regularised. In the present case, some of the respondents appointed prior to the year 1980 as Plot Watchers on daily wage basis by Forest Rangers and District Forest Officers, without any qualification whatsoever, are almost illiterate persons. Again, after 1980, the Government recruited lot of persons by creating the post of Social Forest Workers with the minimum educational qualification to read and write in Tamil. Finally, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.332, Environment and Forests (FR.VI) Department, dated 22.12.1994, stating that the Plot Watchers and Social Forest Workers, who have passed S.S.L.C., will be appointed as Forest Watchers in the existing vacancy.
7.Aggrieved by the said Government Order, the persons, working as Plot Watchers and Social Forest Workers, who have not possessed S.S.L.C. qualification, had filed O.A.No.197 of 1995 through one A.Vadiyappan before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the said G.O.Ms.No.332, dated 28.11.1994. The Tribunal also after hearing the parties, passed an interim order on 24.01.1995, staying the said Government Order. However, while the interim order was in force, 171 persons from 421 persons were appointed as Forest Watchers without considering the interim order passed by the Tribunal and the same was not brought into the notice of the Tribunal. Because of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the Government was also not in a position to make any further appointments for the post of Forest Watcher. Subsequently, the said Government Order was also repealed by another Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.64 Environment and Forests (F2) Department, dated 08.03.1999. In the said Government Order, S.S.L.C. qualification was relaxed and modified to the effect that the persons, who were able to read and write Tamil were made as eligible for appointment to the said post. Therefore, in respect of the appointments took place during the interregnum period, wherein the interim order dated 24.01.1995, was in force, the authorities shall not proceed on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.332, Environment and Forests (FR.VI) Department, dated 22.12.1994.
8.It is further submitted that the petitioners, who were recruited through direct recruitment, have not completed 8 years of service as Forester. However, some of the respondents, who have not even acquired 8 years of service in the feeder category post of Forest Guard, are going to be given promotion to the post of Forester. Only by virtue of an order obtained in the Court in various writ petitions, the names of the petitioners have been included in the panel of Forest Watchers fit for promotion as Forest Guards for the year 2003-04. In compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15998 of 2010, dated 27.07.2010, the dates in which the juniors of the petitioners joined as Forest Watchers, are taken into account, as the dates of joining as Forest Watchers of the petitioners also and their names are included in the appropriate place in the panel of Forest Watcher fit for promotion as Forest Guards for the year 2003-2004 drawn up by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, in Proc.No.AB2/61275/2003, dated 31.05.2004. Such a deeming retrospective effect cannot be given to ineligible persons, who have not even worked as Forest Guard for a period of 8 long years as contemplated by the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules. This is totally running contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Madalaimuthu and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2006 (6) SCC 558. Therefore, the petitioners should be considered for the post of Forester by setting aside the impugned order.
9.Concluding his arguments, Mr.M.C.Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.13015 of 2016 would submit that although the petitioners have not put in 8 long years of service as on 15.08.2015 in the post of Forest Guard as they are going to be affected by the impugned order, dated 02.02.2016, passed by the second respondent, no one can raise their locus standi to challenge the said impugned order. On this basis, he prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.496 of 2015 and W.P.(MD)No.2695 of 2016 would submit that when G.O.Ms.No.332, Environment and Forests (FR.VI) Department, dated 22.12.1994, was already cancelled by the subsequent G.O.(Ms)No.64 Environment and Forests (F2) Department, dated 08.03.1999, all appointments made pursuant to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.332, Environment and Forests (FR.VI) Department, dated 22.12.1994, should go. The reason is, the decision taken to appoint Plot Watchers and Social Forest Workers, who have passed S.S.L.C., as Forest Watchers has been cancelled by the subsequent G.O.(Ms)No.64 Environment and Forests (F2) Department, dated 08.03.1999. Secondly, the said G.O.Ms.No.332, Environment and Forests (FR.VI) Department, dated 22.12.1994, was also stayed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.197 of 1995 on 24.01.1995. Ignoring the order of stay, the Government has wrongly appointed 171 persons from 421 persons as Forest Watchers, without considering the interim order. Therefore, they are not legally entitled to serve as Forest Watcher. If they are allowed to continue, the petitioners would be put to grave problem by loosing their seniority.
11.In support of his submission, Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.496 of 2015 has placed reliance upon the following Judgments:
(i) Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Jagjit Singh and another [1995 (1) SCC 745]
(ii) State of Bihar and others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another [2000 (9) SCC 94]
(iii) A.Umarani Vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others [2004 (7) SCC 112]
(iv) Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others [2006 (4) SCC 1]
(v) State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others [2009 (5) SCC 65]
12.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Government and the private respondents also.
13.Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents objecting to the very maintainability of the Writ Petitions submitted that it is the admitted case of the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.13015 of 2016 that they were all appointed as Forest Guards by the second respondent through direct recruitment from the Employment Exchange in the year 2008. Therefore, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules, prescribing 8 years of service in the post of Forest Guard, cannot be diluted. The petitioners having not even acquired 8 years of service in the post of Forest Guard as on the date of preparation of the panel on 15.08.2015, they are not qualified. Admittedly, the affidavit filed by the petitioners clearly shows that they were appointed from direct recruitment through the Employment Exchange as Forest Guards by the second respondent. Therefore, when they came into service as Forest Guards in the year 2008, as on 15.08.2015 they have not even put in 8 years of requisite service as contemplated in the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules.
14.The relevant Rule is extracted hereunder:
"Promotion of Forest Guard (G.O.Ms.No.112, E & F (FR2), dated 06.06.2002:
(a) Must possess the Minimum General Educational qualification specified in the Schedule to the General Rules or must have rendered satisfactory service in the Forest Department for a period of not less than 8 years."
15.Therefore, the petitioners on their own admission are not even qualified by possessing 8 years of service in the Forest Department for a period of not less than 8 years, therefore, they have no locus standi to approach this Court challenging the impugned order. Secondly, the rights of the parties as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have been crystallised by the proceedings of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, in Proc.No.AB2/40362/2010, dated 12.08.2011, stating that the order passed by this Court, dated 30.10.2009, in W.P.No.23374 of 2008 filed by one P.Govindan and 23 others, directing the respondents 1 and 2 therein to consider the representation of the petitioners therein for the purpose of granting regularisation of service of the petitioners not only on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.95, Environment and Forests [FR-2] Department, dated 07.08.2009, but also taking note of appointment of the subsequent juniors, who have got further promotions and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, in W.P.No.23374 of 2008 and in compliance of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15998 of 2010, dated 27.07.2010, the names of the private respondents were included in the appropriate place in the panel of Forest Watcher fit for promotion as Forest Guards for the year 2003-2004 drawn up by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, in Proc.No.AB2/61275/2003, dated 31.05.2004 and declared as selected Forest Guards, fit for promotion as Forest Guards from the panel of Forest Watcher for the year 2003-2004. Without challenging the said order, the petitioners cannot come to this Court for the simple reason that the rights of the private respondents have been not only crystallised, but also became final, which has not been admittedly till date challenged.
16.I am in full agreement with the said submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
17.A reading of the proceeding, dated 12.08.2011, clearly shows that by order dated 30.10.2009, passed in W.P.No.23374 of 2008 filed by one P.Govindan and 23 others, a direction was issued to the respondents 1 and 2 therein to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law for the purpose of granting regularisation of the service of the petitioners therein not only on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.95, Environment and Forests (FR-2) Department, dated 07.08.2009, but also taking note of the appointment of the subsequent juniors, who have got further promotions. Therefore, the Government have decided to implement the order of this Court and accordingly, fixed the pay of P.Govindan and 23 others notionally for the post of Forest Guard on par with their juniors from the date of assumption of office in that post [Forest Guard]. Moreover, one another order was also obtained in W.P.No.15998 of 2010, dated 27.07.2010, to include their names in the appropriate place in the panel for Forest Watcher fit for promotion as Forest Guards for the year 2003-2004 drawn up by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, Proc.No.AB2/61275/2003, dated 31.05.2004. Since the said order passed on 27.07.2010 in W.P.No.15998 of 2010, was also not questioned by the petitioners and allowed to become final, the respondents have come forward to declare that they are selected as Forest Guards, fit for promotion as Forest Guard for the year 2003-2004. Therefore, when the private respondents have already been included in the panel of Forest Watcher fit for promotion as Forest Guard for the year 2003-2004 on 31.05.2004, it goes without saying that they have clearly complied with the requisite qualification, mentioned in the Rule that one should have rendered satisfactory service of not less than 8 years in the Forest Department for promotion to the post of Forester. Therefore, it is too late for the petitioners to contend that the private respondents have not acquired the requisite qualification of 8 years of service in the post of Forest Guard for further promotion to the post of Forester.
18.The learned counsel for the private respondents also would submit that when repeated orders were passed in various writ petitions, viz., W.P.No.23374 of 2008 filed by P.Govindan and 23 others seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 therein to appoint them as Forest Watcher, taking into account the seniority and qualification, on par with their juniors, by considering the representations in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.15661 of 2006, dated 10.03.2008 and confer all consequential benefits, the said Writ Petition was allowed, directing the respondents 1 and 2 therein to consider their representations, dated 20.08.2008 etc., for the purpose of granting regularisation of their service not only on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.95, Environment and Forests (FR-2) Department, dated 07.08.2009, but also taking note of the appointment of the subsequent juniors, who have got further promotions and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. The said order has become final.
19.Moreover, the said order was also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.690 of 2008 on 13.10.2009 and yet another order dated 30.10.2009 passed in W.P.No.23374 of 2008, questioned by the State Government in W.A.No.607 of 2010, was also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court holding that there is no merit in their contentions with further direction to the appellants therein to comply with the order dated 30.10.2009, passed in W.P.No.23374 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge. In addition thereto, when the State Government filed S.L.P. (Civil) C.C.No.3289 of 2010 against the judgment dated 13.10.2009, passed in W.A.No.690 of 2008, the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 12.03.2010. The final dismissal of the S.L.P. also shows that there is no merit in these Writ Petitions. Therefore, under this background, it could be seen that the only order passed by this Court has been implemented by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, in Proc.No.AB2/40362/2010, dated 12.08.2011, placing the eligible persons, namely, the private respondents herein in the panel of Forest Watcher fit for promotion as Forest Guards for the year 2003-2004, drawn up by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, in Proc.No.AB2/61275/2003, dated 31.05.2004, making it clear that they are declared as selected Forest Guards as on 31.05.2004. All of them have also acquired the requisite qualification of 8 years of satisfactory service, fit for promotion to the post of Forester, therefore, they are entitled to be considered for the post of Forester, since the orders passed by this Court in the aforementioned W.P.Nos.23374 of 2008 and 15998 of 2010 are all implemented by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, in Proc.No.AB2/40362/2010, dated 12.08.2011. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not even questioned the said order asserting their right. Therefore, all the Writ Petitions shall fail and are liable to be dismissed.
20.The official respondents are directed to proceed further by giving promotion to all the eligible candidates. Mr.M.Muthugeethayan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 20 and 21 in W.P.(MD)No.13015 of 2016 submitted that the respondents 20 and 21 are in no way connected with the contest that has been taking place before this Court among the Forest Guards. Therefore, the official respondents are directed to consider their candidatures, namely, the respondents 20 and 21 in their respective categories.
21.In the result, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. In view of the dismissal of W.P.(MD) Nos.496 of 2015 and 2695 & 13015 of 2016, M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2015 in W.P.(MD)No.496 of 2015, for impleading, is dismissed. The interim order already granted is hereby vacated. Consequently, other connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To
1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, St. George Fort, Chennai.
3.The Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, St. George Fort, Chennai.
4.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Head of the Forest Force, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai ? 14.
5.The Principal and Conservator of Forests, Tamil Nadu Forest Training Colleges, Vaigai Dam, Theni District.
6.The District Forest Officer, Velunachiar Building, Dindigul Division, Dindigul District.
7.The District Forest Officer, Salem Division, Salem District.
8.The Conservator of Forests, Salem Circle, Salem ? 8.
9.The Accountant General [GSSA], Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Lekha Pariksha Bhavan, 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai ? 18.
10.The Principal Secretary, Tamil Nadu Government, Department of Environment and Forests, St. George Fort, Chennai.
.