Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: equal status post in S.P. Mathur vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 December, 1999Matching Fragments
The question of the post of Advisor being either superior or inferior to the post of PCCF has no relevance at all because both these posts have been declared equivalent enjoying similar pay scales and status. It is the prerogative of the State Government to post any officer to the post of PCCF, who is considered suitable for manning the post and the Tribunal may perhaps not, while exercising its powers of judicial review, like to go into the question of which officer should have been posted as PCCF, specially when both the positions are equivalent in status and responsibilities and pay scales. The applicant cannot question the prerogative of the Government to create a post and to put any suitable officer thereon and such action falls within the administrative competence of the State Government. In any case, it is not for the Hon'ble Tribunal to go into the said question and examine whether the status and duties attached to the aforesaid post are equal or not when the statutory declaration of equivalence has been made by the State Government. As the post of Advisor (Forest) had been created for the first time, certain initial administrative problems like allotment of office room, placement of appropriate staff etc. did arise but these problems were solved and the applicant has been provided with all the facilities befitting his status. He has been allotted work related to quality improvement in the plantations, model of plantation of J.F.M. areas and any other technical matter referred to him by the Secretary, Forest, As regards the averment that respondent No. 3 was elevated to the post of PCCF without even calling the meeting of the Screening Committee, it has been submitted that in the guidelines regarding appointment to the senior post in IPS issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest vide their letter dated 31.1.1985, there is no provision for constituting the Screening Committee and, therefore, the State Government has the discretion whether to convene or not convene the Screening Committee meeting for such appointments.