S.Sivakumar, v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.03.2015

CORAM:

The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.Nos.19349 of 2012 and 30437 of 2014 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 in W.P.No.30437 of 2014 S. Sivakumar S. Palanisamy 3.

N. Ravindranath 4.

K. Uthrsamy 5.

V.P. Subramaniam 6.

D. Sukumar 7.

R. Saravanan 8.

Arunprasath 9.

10.

T. Munirathinam 11.

G. Kamalanathan 12.

S. Krishnamoorthy 13.

G.K.Murugan 14.

R. Boopathy 15.

M. Muralidharan 16.

B. Seetharaman 17.

K. Devarajan 18.

T. Krishnan 19.

C. Selvam 20.

T. Kandeeban 21.

M. Annapan 22.

S. Balu 23.

R. Ravichandran 24.

K. Prakash 25.

D. Pushbaraj 26.

K.R.Palanisamy 27.

R. Govindarasu 28.

N. Peruamal ...Petitoners in W.P.No.19349 of 2012 R. Gunasekaran P. Servarayan 3.

L. Chandrasekaran 4.

N. Prabakar 5.

M. Ramalingam

6.

N. Ravindranath 7.

P. Nallasivamurthy 8.

R. Dhanasekaran 9.

A. Rajendran 10.

K.R. Palanisamy 11.

K. Uthrasamy 12.

S. Palanisamy 13.

J. Sengottaian 14.

S. Sivakumar 15.

L. Subbarayan 16.

O. Thangaraju 17.

S. Arivazhagan 18.

R. Senthilkumar 19.

S. Senthilkumar 20.

A. Chinnaraju 21.

S. Karuppaiyan 22.

N. Perumal 23.

R. Ravichandran 24.

K. Palanisamy 25.

V.P.Subramaniam 26.

P. Thangarasu 27.

S. Senthilkumar 28.

R. Neelamegan 29.

P. Thiruneelagandan 30.

K. Prakash 31.

32.

A. Kasilingam 33.

S. Selvaraj 34.

D. Pandurangan 35.

V. Balamurugan 36.

K. Ganabalamurugan 37.

M. Annappan 38.

N. Rajendran 39.

K. Manikandan 40.

K. Ramalingam 41.

N. Palanisamy 42.

R. Govindarasu 43.

K. Periyannan 44.

R. Kumaravelu 45.

T. Krishnan 46.

N. Venkatesan 47.

R. Arunprasath 48.

A. Mohamed Ali 49.

C. Murugesan 50.

G. Kamalanathan 51.

V.Subramanian

52.

G.D.Moorthy 53.

M. Selvam 54.

T. Kandeeban 55.

B. Seetharaman 56.

G.K.Murugan 57.

T. Munirathinam 58.

S. Krishnamurthy 59.

M. Neelakandan 60.

S. Palanivel 61.

R. Saravanan 62.

C. Selvam 63.

64.

T. Thirumurugan 65.

S. Kothandaraman

...Petitioners in W.P.No.30437

of 2014 -Vs.- The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Environment and Forest Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009.

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Forest Department Panagal Building 1, Geenis Road Saidapet Chennai-15.

...Respondents in both W.Ps.

Prayer in W.P.No.19349 of 2012:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' promotion from the Forester to the post of Forest Ranger in the Forest Department by considering petitioners' representation dated 28.05.2012.

Prayer in W.P.No.30437 of 2014:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioners as Forest Range Officer from the post of Foresters by giving notional promotion to fix the seniority of Foresters from the year 2005 with retrospective effect on par with ministerial staffs and include their names in appropriate place to the post of Forest Range Officer for panel of the year 2014-2015 within stipulated time.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy in both W.Ps.

Senior Counsel for Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For Respondents : Mr.N. Inbanathan in both W.Ps.

Government Advocate (Forest)

ORDER

These two writ petitions are at the instance of Foresters and the prayer is to consider them for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger in Forest Department taking into account their continuous service and completion of required training.

The facts:

2. The petitioners were appointed as Forest Guards through direct recruitment. The petitioners were promoted as Foresters in 2009-2010. The next avenue of promotion is to the post of Forest Ranger. The Recruitment Rules for appointment to the post of Forest Ranger provides that the candidate should have served as Forester for a period not less than eight years in case they have not successfully completed the course of training for Rangers. It is the case of the petitioners that they have undergone the required training and as such they are eligible for promotion to the post of Forest Rangers. The petitioners were not considered for promotion not withstanding the fact that there are several vacancies in the post of Forest Ranger. The petitioners have submitted a representation requesting the Government to consider them for promotion. However, there was no follow up action taken by the respondents. The petitioners are therefore before this Court.

Defense:

3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it was indicated that for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger, a person should have worked as Forester for eight years and he must have undergone Forester Training in Tamil Nadu Forestry Training College. According to the second respondent the petitioners have not completed eight years of service and as such they are not eligible for promotion.

Submissions:

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the question of completion of eight years of service would arise only in case the foresters have not undergone the Foresters Training.

According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioners have all undergone the required Forester Training and as such they are eligible for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger.

5. I have also heard the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Factual Analysis:

6. The petitioners are all presently working as Foresters. The petitioners have not completed eight years of total service in the post of Foresters. Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service contains the essential qualification and experience for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger. The method of recruitment is by promotion from the post of Forester. The qualification prescribed for the said post is that a candidate must have served for a period of eight years in the case of Foresters, who have not successfully completed a course of training for Rangers. According to the petitioners they have undergone the required course of training and as such the question of eight years of service would not attract in their case. A close reading of the provision relating to experience would support the case pleaded by the petitioners.

The question of eight years of experience would arise only in case the concerned Forester has not successfully completed the course of training for Rangers. There is a further requirement that the Forester must pass the departmental test namely, Forest Law and Office Procedure and Accounts.

7. The second respondent has taken up a contention with regard to passing the departmental test. In case the petitioners have passed the required departmental test as indicated above and successfully completed the course of training for Rangers, necessarily their case should be considered for promotion to the post of Forest Rangers. Disposition:

8. In the result, a writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion in accordance with the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service and in the light of the above observation. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above direction. Consequently the connected MPs are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Tr/ To The Principal Secretary to Government The Government of Tamil Nadu Environment and Forest Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009.

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Forest Department Panagal Building 1, Geenis Road Saidapet Chennai-15.

+1cc to Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, Advocate, S.R.No.16569 +2cc's to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.17164 & 17163 W.P.Nos.19349/2012 & 30437/2014 BKY(CO) CA(01/04/2015)