WP/17107/2021 of G.Vidyanand Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2022

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is flled questioning the action of therespondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotionto the post of Deputy Range Officer, on the ground of reopening ofdisciplinary case, vide orders of the Conservator of Forests (the 3'drespondent) dt.29.05.2020 and issuing futher direction to the ForestDivisional Officer, Adilabad (the 4th respondent), for conducting freshenquiry and rejecting the petitioner's case for promotion to the post ofDeputy Range Officer, vide orders dt.25.03.2021, without finalizing thearticles of charge issued on25.02.2017, as illegal, arbitrary, violativeof Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also to thelaw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State ofPunjab v. Chamanlal Goell and the judgment of the Division Benchof the High Court as reported in the case of The Government of APv, A. Rajeswara Reddy2, with a consequential relief to declare thatthe petitioner is entitled for notional promotion on par with his juniorsto the post of Deputy Range Officer.

r (1995) 2 SCC s702 2O\0 14) AL"t 3742 2O\0 14) AL"t 374

r (1995) 2 SCC s702 2O\0 14) AL"t 3742 2O\0 14) AL"t 374

2. Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, [learned ]counsel [for the ][petitioner, ][and]learned Government [Pleader ][for ][Services ][I ][appeariirg ][on ][behalf ][of ][the]respondents and [perused ][the ][record.]

3. It is the case of the [petitioner ][that ][he was ][initially ][appointed ][as]Junior Assistant on [31.05.2001, which post ][was ][converted as ][Forest]Section Offlcer on [24.10.2008; ][that ][next ][promolion ][from the post ][of]Forest Section Offlcer [is ][to ][the ][post ][of ][Deputy ][Range ][Officer; ][and ][that]for the [purpose ]of [granting ][promotion as ][Deputy ][Range ][Officer, ][each]circle is considered as a [unit.]

4. Petitioner contends that [while ][he ][became ][eligible ][for ][being]considered to the [post ][of ][Deputy ][Range ][Officer, ][the ][4th ][respondent ][had]issued a charge memo dt [25.02.7017, containing articles ][of ][charge ][for]improper utilization of funds, [in violation of ][Government ][Order ][etc.]

5. Petitioner further contends [that ][he ][had ][submitted ][his ][reply]dt.28.10.2017 to the [said articles ][of ][charge, denying ][the ][charge ][and]bringing to the [notice ][of the ][disciplinary ][authority ][that ][the ][alleged]improper utilization of [funds ][related ][to ][a ][period prior ][to ][petitioner]joining in the section i.e., before 08.12.2015.

6. '-P€titioner also contends [that the ][4th respondent ][being ][the]disciplinary authority [on ][considering ][the ][defence statement ][and ][by]

I

II

i

causing discreet enquiry, declared the charge made against thepetitioner as not proved and dropped further proceedings, vide ordersdt.24.02.2020.

7. It is further contended that upon dropping of the disclplinaryproceedings by the 4th respondent, the 3'd respondent in purportedexercise of [power ]under Rule 18 R/w Rule 40(1)(iv)(c) of the AndhraPradesh Civil Services [(Classification, ]Control and Appeal) Rules, [1991](for short,'the Rules'), vlde order Rc.No.53UP&El20l6lYld1.29.05.2020 reopened the said [proceedings, ]and remitted the [matter]back to the 4th respondent to make further enquiry and [take ][necessary]action; and that in furtherance thereof, the 4rh respondent [issued]proceedings dt.03.06.2020 for conducting further enquiry as per thedirection of the 3'd respondent.

B. Petitioner also contends that by the [proceedings ]dt.03.06.2020,the 4th respondent had not only [reopened ]already concludeddisciplinary [proceedings, ]but [had ][also ][kept them ][pending ][for ][an]abnormally long [period, ]and showing [the ][pendency ][of the ]disciplinaryproceedings as a ruse, the respondents are not considering and aie [in]fact denying [granting ]of [promotion ][to ][the ][Petitioner ]to the [post ][of]Deputy Range Officer.

I

9. Petitioner also contends that aggrieved by the non-considerationof his case for [promotion ]by the Respondents on the [ground of]reopening and pendency of the disciplinary [proceedings, ]he [had]approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4799 of 2021 and this [Court ][by]its order dt.01.03.2021, had directed the respondents to consider [the]Petitioner's case for [promotion ]to the [post ]of Deputy Range Officer [as]per G.O.Ms.No.257 dt.10.06.1999; that pursuant to the said directionby this Court, the [petitioner ]had approached the [Respondent ][and]submitted a representation for consideration [of ][his ][case ][in ][terms of]G.O.Ms,No.257; that the 3'd respondent by order [dt.25.03.2021,]rejected the same holding that in terms of G.O.Ms.No,257, [the]disciplinary authority would have a [period ]of [two ][years ][to ][complete ][the]disciplinary [proceedings; ]and that as the [said ][proceedings ][were]reopened on 03.06.2020, the authority has time till 02.06.2022 [i.e.,]when the period of two [years ]would be completed and that the [request]of the [petitioner ]cannot be considered as [on the ][date ][of ][filing ][of ][the]said representation. Aggrieved thereby, the [present ][Writ ][Petition ][is]flled.

10. Petitioner contends that the articles [of ][charge issued pertain to]a period [prior ]to the [year ]2015; and that [the ][disciplinary ][proceedings]which were initiated in the [year ]2017, were dropped after a detailedenquiry by the 4th respondent, vide [proceedings ]dt.24.02.2020, and ,/'' //,/./-7

under the guise of the same having been reopenedr the respondentscannot take shelter under G.O.Ms.No.257 dt 10.06.1999 as if theproceedings are being initiated afresh for the first time. Moreover, asthe petitioner was issued with articles of charge and an enquiry officerwas appointed, the disciplinary proceedings ought to have beencompleted within a period of three to six months on the basis ofclassification of either being a simple or a complicated case as specifiedin G.O.Ms.No.679, GA(Ser.C) Department dt.01.1i.2008.

11. Petitioner Further contends that by keeping the disciplinaryproceedings pending and without concluding the same since 2017,either within a period of two years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 or withina [period ]of six months in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, the non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the nextpost even on adhoc basis is clearly without authoriry of law.

12. Counter-affldavit on behalf of the respondents is filed.13. By the cou nter-affidavit filed, the respondents while not denyingthe factual aspects of the petitioner [joining ]the service in the year2001, it is stated that articles of charge as issued to the petitionerinvolved "neglect of duty, violation of Government Orders issued inc.O.Ms. No. 13 EFS&T (For.tII) Dept., dated t2.02.2002, G.O.Ms. No.4 EFS&T (For.lII) Dept., dated 12.02.2004, and the Article 257 and section B4(2) of A.P Forest Department Code, violation of accountingprocedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.2, EFS&T (For.III) Dept, dt.07.01.2004 and also the executive instructions pCCF by the ApHyderabad, resulting in misappropriation of funds of Government to atune of Rs.13,51,052/- and violation of A.p. Forest Department Code,1993, Afticles 3 (1),(2),(3) & (4) and Section 176 of the FinancialCode.

14. By the counter-affidavit, the respondents also contend that thedisciplinary case against the petitioner was directed to be reopened bythe 3'd Respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under rule1B(2) read with sub-rule(1)(iv)(c) of Rule 40 of the Rutes, whereby thesaid authority was of the view that the disciplinary authority whiledropping the charges against the petitioner rzrde proceedingsdt.25.02.2020, did not discuss about the payment of a sum ofRs.2,80,000/- to M/s. Kanname Agro private Limited under thesignature of the petitioner on the voucher; that as the enquiryauthorized in 2017, was not conducted keeping, in view theirregularities which were duly supported by documentary evidence, the3'd Respondent remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority tocause fufther enquiry and take necessary action as per the rule; thatthe 4th respondent by proceedings dt.03.06.2020 informed to the - ,|

petitioner about the reopening oF the disciplinary case and that thedisciplinary case is at enquiry stage.disciplinary case is at enquiry stage.

15. The respondents by the counter-affldavlt would further contendthat though the period of irregularities pertain to 2015, however, asthe same was pointed out during inspection done in the year 2017, thearticles of charge were framed against the petitioner for irregularitiescommitted by him and disciplinary action was initiated, videproceedings dt.25.02.2017; that, though in terms of circular lvlemoNo.35676/Ser.C/98-1, GA(Ser.C) Department dt.01.07.1998, theenquiry initiated in simple cases is to be completed within threemonths and in complicated cases, the enquiry should be completedwithin five or six months, as the petitioner submitted his defencestatement on 26.10.2017, after eight months from the date of issuanceof the articles of charge on 25.02.2017, the [petitioner ]himself isresponsible for the delay, thus, the respondent authorities are notresponsible for the delay in concluding the proceedings. It is alsocontended that the disciplinary authority after considering the defenceoffered, conducted a discrete enquiry and issued the [proceedings]d1.24.02.2020 and thus, no fault can be found with the action of therespondents.

16 By the cou nter-affidavit, it is arso contended that since the saidorder passed by the 4th respondent was found to be improper, the 3.drespondent had remitted the matter back to the 4th respondent anddirected for reopening the same; pursuant to which, the 4rh respondenthad reopened the same on 03.06.2020 by stating the reasons therein;and that since the disciplinary proceedings on reopening is pendingenquiry, the case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered.

17. Petitioner filed a reply to the counter_affidavit flled by therespondents, wherein it is contended that the reopening of the entireissue by the 3'd Respondent particularly with a direction for conductingfresh enquiry, is contrary to Rule 21 of the Rules. It is contended thatthe respondents cannot make use of the said reopening proceedings asan excuse to deny grant of promotion to the petitioner.

18. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged

19. The fact of the petitioner joining the service of the respondentsin the year 2001 and the next promotion to which the petitioner wouldbecome eligible is Deputy Range OFficer, is not in dispute. It is also anadmitted fact that the petitioner was issued with articres of chargeinitially in the year 2017, to which he had submitted his reply, thoughafter.a.qeriod of eight months, as contended in the counter_amdavit.Even thereafter the respondents took more than two years to complete ,l:

the proceedings by conducting enquiry. It is only [on ][24.02.2020, the]4th respondent issued [proceedings ]dropping [the ][charge against the]petitioner. Thus, the entire proceedings from the issue of articles ofcharge, till the date of the order dropping [the ][articles ][of ][charge ][issued]against the [petitioner ]took three long [years.]

20. Though by [proceeding ]dt.24.02.2020, [the ][4th ][respondent]dropped the articles of charge [against ][the ][petitioner as ][not ][proved, ][the]said order did not find acceptance [with the ][3'd ][respondent, ][as ][the ][said]authority was of the view that [enquiry officer ][did ][not take ][into ][account]the documentary evidence [found ][while ][passing ][the ][order and ][thus]directed the 4th Respondent to [reopen ][the ][matter ][and ][pass ][orders]afresh. The said action of [the ][3'd ][respondent ][is ][purportedly ][in ][exercise]of power under Rule 1B(2) of [the ][Rules. ][Rule ][18 ][of ][CCA ][Rules deals]with authorities, who are vested [with the ][power ][to ][reopen ][cases. The]said Rule is extracted below [for ][better ][understanding:]

Lower authority not to reopen [case: ][higher authority ][can]exercise power

Lower authority not to reopen [case: ][higher authority ][can]exercise power

18. [( ]1) Where in any case a [higher ][authority ][has imposed ][or ][declined to]impose a [penalty ]under rule [11, ][12 ][or ][14 ][a ][lower ][authority ][shall have ][no]jurisdiction to proceed under these rules in respect of the same [case.](2) Where in any case a lower [authority ][has ][imposed ][a ][penalty ][or]exonerated a member of [a ][service, ][it ][shall ][not ][debar ][a ][higher authority]from exercising his [powers ]under [these ][rules in ][respect ][of ][the same ][case.]

The order of such higher authority shall supercede any order passed by alower authority in respect of the same case.

21. A reading of sub-rule(2) of Rule 18 of the Rules indicates that itcontemplates a srtuation where a higher authority who is not inaqreement with the order passed by the lower authority of eitherimposing a penalty or exonerating a member, can pass an order byhimself. \r'/hen such an order is passed, the same would thensupersede the lower authority.

22. However, in the facts of the present case, as notedhereinabove, the 3'd respondent being the higher authority, did notpass an order by himself arriving at a conclusion with respect to thepetitroner committing any violation as per the articles of charge issuedto him. On the other hand, the 3d respondent by proceedingdt.29.05.2020, finding that the enquiry officer in furtherance of theafticles of charge issued on 25.02.2017,. had conducted the enquirywithout discussing the payment of Rs.2,g0,000/_ made to the firmKanname Agro [private ]Limited and also in the defence submitted bythe petitioner there was no mention regarding the said amount, heldthat irregularities of grave nature had occurred. Therefore the 3dRespondent was oF the view that.the enquiry was conducted in acasual way and remitted the case back to the disciplinary authoritywith a direction to reopen the said case and take necessary action by making further enquiry based on the documentary evidence. However,such a power as resorted to by the 3'd respondent is neither specifiednor contemplated under Rule 1B(2) of the Rules. As noted above, iF thehigher authority was not satisfied with the order of the disciplinaryauthority, he is bestowed with the power to reopen the case, considerthe material on record, the explanation offered and pass an order byhimself. But the 3'd respondent could not record a finding and remit itto the disciplinary authority with a direction to reopen the case andconduct fresh enquiry in terms of the findings recording by him.

23. Further, reference to Rule 40 of the Rules by the 3'd respondentauthority in the proceedings dt.29.05.2020 is also misplaced, inasmuchas the sub-rule( 1) thereof deals with power of revision to be exercisedunder clause (i) by the Government and authorities as specified inclause (ii) to (iv) when a revision petition is preferred by theGovernment servant aggrieved by the action.of the disciplinary officer,but does not contemplate or provide for where proceedings against aGovernment servant have been dropped.

24. In the facts of the present case, since the disciplinary authoritydropped the proceedings Initiated against the petitioner videproceedings dt24.02.2020, there could not have been any applicationfiled by the petitioner seeking revision against the said proceedings, for i the 3'd respondent to remit the case back to the disciplinary authorityi.e., the 4th Respondent in terms of sub-clause (c) of clause (iv) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 40 of the Rules. Thus, the reference tc Rulea0(l)(iv)(c) oF the Rules by the 3'd respondent in the proceedingsdt.29.05.2020, in the view of this Court, is totally misplaced.i.e., the 4th Respondent in terms of sub-clause (c) of clause (iv) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 40 of the Rules. Thus, the reference tc Rulea0(l)(iv)(c) oF the Rules by the 3'd respondent in the proceedingsdt.29.05.2020, in the view of this Court, is totally misplaced.

25. lnsofar as the power to reopen in terms of Rule 1B(2) of theRules is concerned, as noted hereinabove, though the 3'd respondent isconferred with such power, the said authority is required to pass anorder by himself, when he is in disagreement with the order passed bythe d sciplinary authority. As the 3rd respondent did not pass an orderby himself after putting the petitioner on notice, to arrive at a differentconclusion from that of the disciplinary authority, the proceedingsdt.29.05.2020 in purported exercise of power under Section 1B(2)cannot be said to be a valid exercise of power by the 3'd respondent.

26. The above conclusion arrived at by this Court gets support fromRule a0(1)(iv)(c) of the Rules, which provides that in a situation as inthe facts of the present case, only when the 3rd respondent in exerciseof powers under rule 18(2) of the Rules, passes an order recording hisreasons and conclusions, a government servant would have a right toseek revision by approaching the appropriate authority in terms of Rule40 of the Rules. Therefore, Rule 40 is a remedy available to a \

I

a

government servant aggrieved by an order under Rulel8(2), and thesaid rule cannot be pressed into service by the Respondent [authorities]to further their cause, as has been done in the [present ][case.]

27. Thus, the proceedings dt.29,05.2020 by which the [3'd]respondent remitted the matter back to the 4th respondent, directinghim to reopen the disciplinary proceedings against the [petitioner ][in]pursuance of aticles of charge dt.25.02.70L7, cannot be held to bevalid.

28. Even assuming that the power to reopen would also take withinits ambit, the power to remit back a matter for fresh consideration, it [is]to be noted that, the disciplinary authority would have to [proceed ]onthe afticles of charge which formed basis for the [proceedings ]originallyinitiated. Thus, in the facts of the [present ]case after remitting andreopening the matter, proceedings would have to be conducted afreshon the articles of charge as issued to the [petitioner ]on 25.02.2017.Fufther, the 4th Respondent was then required to [proceed ]byconsidering the defence submitted by the Petitioner in October, 2017and not by considering proceedings as being initiated afresh.

29. Fufther, a conspectus reading of G.O.Ms.No.257 dt.10.06.1999and G.O.Ms. No.679 dt 01.11.2008 would show that, the formerGovernment Order stipulates that in case of charge sheets [pending ]for more than a [period ]of 2 [yea$, ][the ][name ][of ][such person ][against whom]are [pending maybe ][be ][considered ][for]disciplinary [proceedings ]promotion on ad-hoc basis. Such a [period ][of ][2 ][years ][in ][terms ][of]G.O.lYs.No. 257 [is ][calculated ][from ][the ][date ][of the first ][meeting ][when]the disciplinary authority [had ][conducted ][the ][proceedings, ][while ][the]latter government order [i.e., ][G.O'Ms.No. ][657 ][comes ][intb ][play ][after]commencement of [the ][disciplinary proceedings and fixes ][a ][time ][period]of 3 to 6 six months [for ][completion ][of ][the ][enquiry ][by ][the ][enquiry]officer.

30. In the [facts ][of ][the ][present ][case, ][as ][the ][articles ][of ][charge ][were]issued, the [petitioner ][having submitted ][his ][defence ][and ][the ][enquiry]officer having been [appointed, ][the ][3'd respondent ][authority ][ought ][to]the [enquiry ][within ][the ][time ][frame as ][prescribed ][in]have completed terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, [GA(Ser.C) ][Department ][dt01'11'2008' ][The]relevant clause of the [said G.O. reads as ][under:]

"On allegation made [aqainst ][the ][Government employee, ][disciplinary]cases are initidted in [accordance ][with ][the ][rules ][in force ][and ][wherever]necessary, enquiry authorities [are ][appointed ][to ][enquire into afticles ][of]charge against such [employees. Instructions ][were ][issued ][for ][completion]of the enquiry [and ][normal of three ][months ][and ][six months ][is ][allowed ][in]simple and complicated [cases ][respectively'"]

2. several representations [have been ][received ][from ][employees]association that [there are abnormal ][delays ][in completion of enquiries ][and]this is causing [lot ][of ][frustration ][among ][the ][employees' Government ][have]

-

j

reviewed the issue and decided to issue further instructions ,n thematter.matter.

3. Government directed that the disciplinary cases inltiated aqainst theGovernment employees shall be completed (emphasb supplied bythis Court) as expeditiously as possible and the existing instructlonsread above shall be adhered to. The departments of Secretary shallreview status position of the pending disciplinary cases, all the employeeswith which they are concerned, and submit a note to the chier secretaryto Government as per instructions in force. It is also the responsibility ofthe enquiring authority to comprete the enquiry as per the a[owed time.The competent authority after receipt of the enquiry report shall concludethe disciplinary proceedings within six months of its initiation and in caseof abnormal delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings; action shallbe initiated against the concerned enquiring authority.,,

31. From the above said G.O., it would be clear that whereverdiscipllnary proceedings are initiated against the Government servantand an enquiry omcer is appointed to enquire into articles of charge,the same is required to be completed within a period of three monthsor six months, depending upon the gravity of the charge. The said G,O.in para 3 makes reFerence to the existing instructions issued in thisregard and one such instruction referred to therein is circular MemoNo.35676/Ser.C/98, GA (Ser.III) Depaftment, dt.o1.07.1998. It is to benoted that it is the same circular memo to which reference has beenmade by the respondents in their counter, to claim that the enqulryinitiated is to be completed within a period of three months or sixmonths, as the case may be. If the respondents are making areFerence to the said circular, which now forms part of G.O.Ms.No.679, I

it is not known hor,.r the respondent authorities have been dragging thematter by keeping the enquiry initiated against the petitioner pendingsince 2017, or even after the 3'd respondent remiiting the matter backto the 4th respondent on 29.05.2020.

32. Fufther, the stand of the respondents in the impugnedproceedinqs dt.25.03.2021 while rejecting the representation of thepetitioner pursuant to the order of this Court in W.p.No.4799 of Z02Lon the ground that the authority has two year's time in terms ofG.O.lYs.No.257 dt.10.06.1999, as the said period had not expired, inthe considered view of this Couft, is wholly misplaced, for the reasonthat the period of two years would be applicable from the date ofinitiation of disciplinary proceedings at the first instance and not whenthe matter is remitted back.

33. In the facts of the present case,. the time frame prescribedunder G.O.Ms.No.257 dt.10.06.1999, would start to run from theinitiation of proceedings at the first instance by issuing Articles ofcharge i.e., form 25.02,2017. The disciplinary authority having droppedthe same vide his order dt. 24.02.2020, which by itself is beyond twoyears, the respondents cannot now seek to rely on the time periodprescribed, when the matter is remitted back and reopened. Once thedisciplinary authority had passed an order i.e., on 24.02.2020, the 3d respondent not being satisfied with the said order, chooses to exercisepowers conferred on him under Section 1B(2) of the Act and remit thematter back to the disciplinary authority, for reopening and takingfurther action, in the considered view of this Court, would not onceagain grant/confer fresh period of two years therefrom, as it wouldhave to be treated as continuation of the initial [proceedings. ]If the saidstand of the respondents that, on the matter being remitted back theauthority would get a fresh lease of life of two [years, ][is ]accepted, thenevery time the hlgher authority without [passing ]an order by himselfremits the matter back to the disciplinary authority, the same wouldamount to [granting ]extension of time by the higher authority, [in]absence of any specific [power ]being conferred to that effect under theRules. Thus, the stand of the respondents if accepted would mean thatthe respondent authority would be [permitted ]to do indirectly what [it]cannot do directly, which course of action [is ]not [permitted ]in [law.]

34. Thus, the stand of the respondents in the impugned [proceeding]that the authority has two years time from the date of reopening thecase cannot be countenanced. More so, having regard [to ]the [fact that]the articles of charge having been issued earlier and the defencestatement thereto being submitted, the discipllnary [authority ][is ][only]required to [proceed ]from the stage of conducting [enquiry ][by]considering the statement of defence [and ]cannot [assume as ][if ][he ][has]

to start from the scratch i.e., by issuing articles of charge and callingupon the Government servant to file his defence statement once againThus, on the matter being remitted back the disciplinary authoritywould be required to act within the time frame in terms ofG.O.tvls.No.679 i.e. a period of three months or six months dependingupon the nature of the case erther simple or complicated.

35. In the Facts of the present case, since more than a year haselapsed from the date of reopening of the case, vide proceedingsdt.03.06.2020, the respondent authorities cannot make use of thependency of the said proceeding as a ruse for non-consideration of thecase of the petitioner for grant of promotion in the panel year during2027 or any time thereafter.

36. Fufther, it is also to be seen that, the respondents aresurprisingly silent in their cou nter-affldavit as to when the petitionerwould become eligible for grant of promotion even though a referencewas made in para 5 of the counter to circular Memo dt.01.07.1998,which has been referred to G.O.tv'1s.N0.679 dt.01.11,2008. Thus, therespondents being clear of the timeline prescribed in the circular MemoNo.35676 as referred to in G.O.Ms.No.679 for completion ofdisciplinary proceedings read in thereunder, along with the time frameprescribed under G.O.Ms.N0.257 dt 10.06.1999 as commencing from 25.02.2077, the non-consideration of the case of the petitioner forgrant of promotion, in the panel year beyond the period prescribedunder the respective Government Orders, cannot be held to be valid.grant of promotion, in the panel year beyond the period prescribedunder the respective Government Orders, cannot be held to be valid.

37. In vrew of the same, this Court is of the considered view thatthe respondents are requrred to consider the case of the petitioner Forgrant of promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer, at least onadhoc basis, notwithstanding the pendency of articles of charge interms of proceedings dt.25.02.2017.

38. Accordingly, the Writ [petition ]is allowed and the order of the 3.dRespondent dt.29.05.2020 in Rc.No.53 1/p &El 2Ot6 I MI is set-aside. Therespondents are directed to include the name of the petitioner in thelist of the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of DeputyRange Officer, for the current panel year i.e.. for the year 2022-2023.

39. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Noorder as to costs.

I

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212022

rr4tf1rc\ORDERatWP.No.17107 of 2021Jo(-_0 6 JIt]l [?073].i( \ -_::----.

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS.

Ja.-,/