WP/20944/2004 of K.Rajanna, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer, on 29 December 2004

1. The Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad District, Adilabad.

2 The Conservator of Forests, Adilabad District, Adilabad.

.....RESPONDENTS.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court be pleased to issuea writ or order or direction, particularly, one in the nature of writ of certiorari quashingthe order dated 27-10-2004 in O.A.No.4832 of 2004 passed by the Andhra Pradesh AdministrativeTribunal, and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to continue thepetitioners as Forest Section Officers as per the orders of the Divisional ForestOfficer, Adilabad promoting the petitioners in the reference Rc.No.4672/02/S2 dated27-05-2004 by setting aside the orders of abeyance issued by the Divisional ForestOfficer, Adilabad in his references Rc.No.4672/2002-S2 dated 24-06-2004.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.JAGANNATHA SARMA

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS

The Court made the following :

ORDER: (Per Sri GB,J)

The petitioners are assailing the order, dated 27-10-2004 passed by theA.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4832 of 2004.

2. The petitioners were working as Forest Beat Officers. However by order dated 27-05-2004 the petitioners were promoted purely on temporary basis as Forest SectionOfficers. However within a short spell, by an order dated 24-06-2004 the petitionerswere kept in abeyance. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filedO.A.No.4832 of 2004 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

3. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, held that the order of therespondents in keeping the order of promotion in abeyance vide proceedings dated26-04-2004 and keeping the applicants as incharge Forest Section Officers inproceedings dated 26-04-2004 of the first respondent cannot be said to be againstthe principles of natural justice and accordingly dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved by thesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appointing authority itselfwhile promoting the petitioners as Forest Section Officers, has taken an undertaking

letter from the petitioners that they will have to vacate the posts without any objectionand as the said vacancies are meant for direct recruitees, they will not claim anybenefits arising out of the order or promotion. The learned counsel further submitsthat as the appointing authority is the Divisional Forest Officer and he is havingpower of termination or grant promotion to the petitioners, the Higher Authority hasno jurisdiction to interdict the promotions made by the Divisional Forest Officer. Inorder to run the departmental work effectively, there is a necessity to providesufficient staff. Under those circumstances, continuing the petitioners on temporarybasis as Forest Section Officers until the direct recruitment is made would notprejudice the Department. Hence, the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, dated24.06.2004 in keeping the promotions of the petitioners in abeyance is liable to beset aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondentssubmits that in order to obtain necessary permission from the higher authorities, theDivisional Forest Officer placed the matter before the Conservator of Forests.Because of the objections pointed out by the Conservator of Forests with regard tothe promotions of the petitioners, stating that the promotions were not made inaccordance with the Rules as contemplated in the Andhra Pradesh State ForestSubordinate Service Rules, 2000, and because the Conservator of Forest, AdilabadCircle did not give his acceptance, the Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad Divisionkept the promotions of the petitioners in abeyance. Hence, we are of the view thatthe order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer dated 24-06-2004 is quite legal andvalid.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedGovernment Pleader for the Respondents.

7. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners sought to be promoted as ForestSection Officers. It is however contended by the learned counsel for the petitionersthat as direct recruitments were not made, the appointing authority has temporarilyfilled up some direct recruit vacancies by promotees, in view of the exigency ofservice. As the appointing authority took an undertaking from the petitioners that asand when direct recruitments are made, the services of the petitioners will bereverted and they cannot claim any seniority in that category nor did they come inthe way of direct recruitment. When the services of the petitioners are very muchrequired, it is always open for the appointing authority to promote the petitioners on temporary basis. But, as it is a matter of administration of the department, this courtcannot compel the authorities to fill up the posts. Under these circumstances, we findthat it is not a case for interference. However, if the filling of the posts of ForestSection Officers is found to be essential, it is open for the authorities to consider thecase of the petitioners with a specific condition that they shall be appointed withoutclaiming any preferential treatment and they shall be reverted as soon as the postsare filled up by direct recruitment in accordance with the rules.

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

________________

G.BIKSHAPATHY, J

_________________P.S.NARAYANA, J

29[th] December, 2004.Chvn/TJS

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

To

1. The Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad District, Adilabad.

2 The Conservator of Forests, Adilabad District, Adilabad.

3. Two C.Cs. to the G.P. for Forests, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).

4. Two C.D. ciopies.