Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed two writ petitions challenging a common order dated 9 October 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, in Original Application No. 777 of 2011 and connected matters. The Tribunal had directed the Union of India and the State Government to reconsider the induction of the respondent officers (Uddhao Pandurang Patil and Atmaram Maniram Rathod) into the Indian Forest Service (IFS). The respondents were State Forest Officers who claimed that they were entitled to be inducted into the IFS under Regulation 5(3) of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Regulations, 1966, based on a cadre review that was due in 2007 but was delayed. The Tribunal, while disposing of the OAs, directed the authorities to reconsider their induction. The State argued that the respondents had no vested right to induction merely because of the delay in cadre review. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the respondents had no vested right to induction but only a right to be considered. The delay in cadre review did not extinguish that right. The Tribunal's direction to reconsider was not a direction to induct but to consider afresh. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the direction to reconsider. The court also disposed of the connected civil applications.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Indian Forest Service - Induction - Regulation 5(3) of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Regulations, 1966 - Right to Consideration - The respondent, a State Forest Officer, claimed induction into IFS based on a cadre review due in 2007 but conducted later. The Tribunal directed reconsideration of his induction. The High Court held that the officer has no vested right to induction, only a right to be considered. Delay in cadre review does not extinguish the right to consideration. The Tribunal's direction to reconsider was upheld, but it was clarified that the direction is not to induct but to consider afresh. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Administrative Tribunal - Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, examined the Tribunal's order and found no error warranting interference. The Tribunal's direction to reconsider was within its jurisdiction and did not amount to a direction to induct. The State's petition was dismissed. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent no.1, a State Forest Officer, has a vested right to be inducted into the Indian Forest Service merely because the cadre review due in 2007 was delayed, and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal could direct reconsideration of induction despite the delay.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the Tribunal's direction to reconsider the induction of the respondents into the Indian Forest Service. The court clarified that the direction is to consider afresh and not to induct. Connected civil applications also disposed of.
Law Points
- Regulation 5(3) of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Regulations
- 1966
- Right to be considered for induction
- Delay in cadre review does not defeat right
- No vested right to induction
- Only right to consideration
- Tribunal's direction to reconsider not a direction to induct
