S.N.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions are interknil together by reason of consideration of common issues involved and for facility of adjudication of the controversy by a composite decision. The first petition has been preferred by petitioners Umesh Kumar and Virendra Kumar Arya conjointly assailing their non -consideration and consequent supersession in the matter of promotion from Assistant Logging Officer/Deputy Logging Officer to the post of Logging Officer while the second petition has been preferred by petitioner Umesh Kumar alone questioning the validity of the order whereby respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been given promotion and the petitioner has been denied yet further promotion to the post of Divisional Logging Officer.
(2.) IT is necessary to unfold only so much facts as may bear upon the controversy involved in this petition. The petitioner, to begin with, entered the service in the year 1983 as Assistant/Deputy Logging Officer. In the year 2002 the said post was re -designated as Deputy Logging Officer. The petitioner, it is claimed, worked unabatedly on the said post upto April, 2002. According to the assertions in the petition, the petitioner figured in the Seniority List at serial No. 49 while respondent Nos. 4 and 5 with whom he is embroiled in the present petition found mention at Serial Nos. 76 and 107 respectively. It would further appear from the record that besides the general seniority list, a separate seniority list of 18 persons consisting of S.C./S.T. category was also processed and in that list, the petitioner figured at serial No. 2 and in adherence to the reservation quota in promotion, two persons were to be picked up for promotion out of the list separately prepared for S.C./S.T. candidates but the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted for the purpose, while eschewing petitioner from consideration, recommended Vinod Kumar Chaudhary respondent No. 4 and Kesh Ram Sagar respondent No. 5 for promotion to the next higher post in the hierarchal order, i.e., Logging Officer. It would also transpire from the record that Vinod Kumar Chaudhary who was commended for promotion figured at serial No. 3 of that list prepared separately for S.C./S.T. candidates while another person namely Kesh Ram Sagar was an O.B.C. candidate. It is in this backdrop that the present petition has been instituted for the reliefs of quashing the impugned orders. In the context of the above facts, I delved further deep into the record in order to dig out further information bearing on the controversy. It transpires from the record that the petitioner was eschewed from consideration by reason of the fact that some departmental proceedings had been set afoot against him. Before I notice and advert to the contentions made across the bar, it would be proper to have acquaintance with the relevant Rules governing the service condition of the petitioner. The rules germane to the controversy are Rules 6, 7 and 8 which lay down criteria for promotion. It is stipulated in essence that the Departmental Selection Committee shall be constituted which shall consider the cases for promotion. It is further provided that criteria for promotion would be seniority subject to rejection of unfit. It would also transpire that all eligible candidates shall be considered for promotion who had completed span of five years in the feeding cadre. It is also envisaged in the Rules that character roll/confidential report recorded by the reporting officer shall constitute basis for consideration of promotion.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner began his submission canvassing that there was nothing adverse against him on the record which could have furnished foundation for non -consideration and consequent supersession. As a matter of fact, some departmental enquiry had been initiated which according to the own admission of the learned counsel for the Forest Corporation had come to be dropped as against petitioner No. 2 namely, Virendra Kumar Arya. It is further canvassed that criteria being seniority cum rejection of unfit, seniority was to play predominant role. It is further canvassed that even if it be assumed that departmental enquiry operated as obstacle, the Departmental Promotion Committee could have resorted to the sealed cover procedure which having not been done, the entire selection made by the Departmental Promotion Committee suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. In vindication of the above submissions, the learned counsel also placed credence on two decisions rendered by Apex Court in B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. v. K. Addanki Babu and Ors., JT 1998 (5) SC 96 and State of M. P. v. J. S. Bansal and Anr., AIR 1998 SC 1015. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Forest Corporation tried to vindicate the selection held by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner was under scrutiny in the department proceeding and as such he was rightly pronounced unfit.;