- (1.) BEFORE adverting to the real controversy between the parties it would be convenient to refer to certain facts which are admitted on both sides. The petitioner who is presently working as Regional Director, Social Forestry and is a member of the All India Forest Service was the senior most Conservator of Forests and, was due for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Conservator of Forests since persons senior to him had either retired or had already been promoted. There were two vacant posts of Additional Chief Conservator of Forests and a selection for these posts was to be held on 3 -2 -1982. The petitioner, however filed a representation just a day before the selection requesting that his representation against the adverse entry of 1980 -81 be decided first and he be given a personal hearing and meanwhile the selection should be postponed. Selection was, however, held at which the petitioner was not selected and two persons junior to him, namely, Sri P.N. Gupta and Sri M.D. Upadhyaya were selected for the post. The petitioner filed a writ petition being No. 732 of 1982 challenging the selection of the said two persons in preference to him and obtained, an interim order in the following terms : "Put up for orders at the time of admission of the writ Petition. We direct that in the meantime the result of the proceedings of the Selection Committee for selecting candidates for the post of Additional Chief Conservator of Forests shall not be declared or acted upon." The Chief Standing Counsel who was representing the State and its officers was present when the order was passed and, communication was sent by him conveying to the Government the, stay granted by the Court through his letter dated 15th Feb. 1982 which was received by the Government the next day. It did not, however, reproduce the order verbatim but only communicated the following: "Admit. On stay, Result will not be declared." The petitioner, however, claims to have sent information of the stay order through his letter dated 15 -2 -1982 to opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 as also to the Chief Conservator of Forests. This letter, according to him was sent at about 4 P. M. and thereafter shortly after 6 P. M. a certified copy of the order was also obtained and a photostat copy thereof sent to opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 as also to the Chief Conservator of Forests. While it has not been disputed that the photostat copies of the stay order were delivered at the office of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 between 6 P. M. and 7 P. M., it is denied by the opposite parties that any earlier communication from the petitioner conveying the order was received by them before the notifications regarding the promotion and posting of Sarvasri P.N. Gupta and M.D. Upadhyaya were issued. Sri M.D. Upadhyaya took over charge of his office the same evening whereas Sri P.N. Gupta assumed office the next day in the forenoon since he was then posted at Dehra Dun and was informed of the order on telephone.
(2.) THE petitioner's contention further was that opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 were biased against the petitioner and although the petitioner had delivered a letter at the office of the Forest Secretary opposite party No. 2 at 3.45 P. M. and at the office of the Chief Secretary opposite party No. 1 at 4 P. M. intimating the contents of the stay order, yet in disobedience thereof the formal orders of promotion and posting were issued by them late in the evening after the receipt of the aforesaid letters. These allegations are, however, strongly denied on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 in their counter -affidavits. According to opposite party No. 1, no letter whatsoever was delivered in his office at 4 P.M. as alleged, and in fact the letter was delivered to his P. A. at 6.10 P. M. which was placed before him in his Dak Pad and was seen by him at 6.30 P.M. and immediately marked to the Forest Secretary for necessary action. Before this, however, orders for promotion and posting had been issued. Similarly, the Forest Secretary opposite party No. 2 denied in his counter -affidavit the receipt of this letter by him at 3.45 P. M. as alleged and, contended that a certified copy of the order was, however, delivered at his office at 6.15 P. M. in his absence and was placed before him on his return to his room at 7 P.M. but the formal orders of promotion and posting had already been issued at about 5.30 P.M. after due approval by the Forest Minister. The main point of dispute between the parties therefore, is as to at what point of time the interim order passed by this court was communicated to the opposite parties and, whether after knowledge thereof effect was given to the result of the Selection Committee and the same was acted upon by issuing the orders for promotion and posting in disobedience thereof.
(3.) THE allegations against opposite party No. 4 Sri D. B. Misra who was Conservator at headquarters and Assistant to the Chief Conservator of Forests were that in the absence of the Chief Conservator of Forests who was on tour on that date, Sri D.B, Misra was to look after the normal routine work of the Chief Conservator of Forests and an attempt was made to serve the order of the Court ' on him but he 'had left his office in the afternoon and on enquiry it was found, that he was camping at Kukrail Forest Rest House. The petitioner accordingly tried to serve the order on the Chief Head Assistant Sri Badri Datt Tewari. opposite party No. 3 in this petition, but he expressed his inability to accept the letter saying that Sri D.B. Misra opposite party No. 4 had asked him not to receive any such communication in the matter. The petitioner on coming to know that opposite party No. 4 was camping at Kukrail Forest Rest House sent his messenger to deliver the letter there but the opposite party No. 4 refused to receive the same on the plea that the office hours were over (it was about 6 P.M.) and the bearer should contact him in his office the next day. It was accordingly delivered to the opposite party No. 4 at 10.45 A.M. the next day. A copy of the order was also delivered to the Forest Minister at 8.30 P. M. on 15 -2 -1982 and an acknowledgment obtained. Thus so far as opposite parties 3 and 4 are concerned, the contention was that they refused to accept the order of the High Court and in the meanwhile issued the formal orders of promotion and posting and did not take any further steps to check Sarvasri P.N. Gupta and M.D. Upadhyaya from taking over charge of their respective offices as was required in compliance of the interim order of the High Court.;