C.K.PRASAD,A.P.SAHI,J. - (1.) AS prayed for by Mr. G. C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, let the names of respondents 4 to 8 of the writ petition be added as respondents.
(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3-appellants, aggrieved by order dated 17.12.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35533 of 1996, have preferred this appeal under Rule 5, Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein, is a Forest Guard and was earlier posted at Nainital. He made request for his transfer and by order dated 19.6.1984 of the Principal Conservator of Forest, he was transferred from Western Circle to Eastern Region and posted at Varanasi. A seniority list of the Forest Guards of the Varanasi Region was circulated by letter dated 17.3.1990 in which the name of respondent No. 1-Mahanand Singh finds at serial No. 15, whereas that of Thakur Prasad Misra at serial No. 17. Promotion to the post of Forester is governed by Rule 16 of the Lower Subordinate Forest Service Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1980), which inter alia provides that promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. By order dated 12.5.1991, a larger number of persons were promoted as Forester, which included Thakur Prasad Misra. Writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 challenged the order of promotion of said Thakur Prasad Misra, inter alia, contending that he being senior to him ought to have been promoted. By way of an interim order dated 8.11.1996, this Court directed for consideration of the representation of respondent No. 1. In the light of the aforesaid order, representation of respondent No. 1 was considered and rejected by order dated 15.2.1997 of the Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Region. While rejecting the representation of respondent No. 1, the Conservator or Forest has observed that Thakur Prasad Misra was granted promotion, as his name figured above respondent No. 1 in the seniority list. He further observed that as respondent No. 1 was transferred at his own request, in view of Rule 28 of the Rules, 1980 he was placed at the bottom of the seniority list. Respondent No. 1, by way of an amendment, challenged the aforesaid order of the Conservator of Forest dated 15.2.1997.
(3.) IT was contended before the learned Single Judge that the seniority list, as circulated by letter dated 17.3.1990, shows respondent No. 1 senior to Thakur Prasad Misra and as such, he ought to have been promoted as Forester. It was pointed out that promotion to the post of Forester is to be made on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit, as such denial of promotion to respondent No. 1 was illegal.;