- (1.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the following relief : "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 7th October, 1993 (Annex.7) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may be quashed and set aside, to the extent it pertains to promotion of Shri Shankarlal son of Kodar (respondent No.3) on the post of Assistant Forester from the post of Forest Guard. 2. The respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner afresh, for the purpose of promotion on the post of Assistant Forester against the vacancies against which the respondent No.3 has been promoted by the order impugned dated 7th October, 1993. 3. The respondents may further be directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Forester from the date Shri Shankar Lal was promoted on the post of Assistant Forester. All consequential benefits may also be allowed to the petitioner. 4. The costs of the writ petition may kindly be allowed in favour of the petitioner. 5. That any other writ, order or direction, which your Lordship may deem just and proper in the circumstances, may also be issued in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) THE coordinate Bench of this Court on 5.3.2001 passed the following interim order in this case: "This petitioner raises a short issue. The claim of the petitioner is that while respondent Shankar Lal is junior to him whether on the basis of date of appointment or on the basis of confirmation, as per final seniority list vide Annexure/5 the petitioner was given benefit of selection grade simultaneously but at the time of considering promotion against higher post of Assistant Forester which is to be accorded on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the said Shankar Lal has been promoted in preference to the petitioner. He has prayed that he may be considered and appointed on the post of Assistant Forester with effect from the date persons junior to him have been promoted. In response, a reply has been filed pointing out that after the promotion of Shankar Lal selection grade in the case of Shankar Lal has been withdrawn after filing of writ petition on 4.8.1994 and it also goes to show that there are adverse entries in the case of petitioner in the Annual Confidential Report 1986-87. However, order dated 13th March, 1995 has already been placed on record now stating that the petitioner has since been promoted w.e.f. 13.3.1995 whereby such promotion is to be affected on the date of joining by the persons at the places disclosed against their name who have been promoted while the reply reveals that Departmental Promotion Committee has taken into consideration the adverse entries in the ACR of 1986-87 and that a representation has been made by the petitioner against such entries. It is not apparent from the record whether until the time of consideration, the adverse entries had been communicated to the petitioner and whether the representation made by him had been considered and disposed of as if so for what result or was pending. In these circumstances, the counsel for the respondents is directed to furnish necessary information in that regard within two weeks." The respondent Forest Department has filed reply to the said writ petition and substance of the reply in para (21-a) and (21-b) is quoted below : "In reply to these paras, it is submitted that the order dated 7.10.1993 (Annex.7) is legal and valid order which does not offend to the provisions of the Rules of 1963. The D.P.C. convened in the year 1993 has not found the petitioner suitable to grant promotion on the higher post of Assistant Forester under the Rules of 1963. There was an adverse entry against the petitioner in A.C.R. Of the year 1986-87 and the same was communicated to the petitioner and against which the petitioner has made representation and therefore, the D.P.C. while considering the candidature of the petitioner has taken into consideration the entire service record of the petitioner and has given weightage to the last 5-10 years. On account of Adverse entry in A.C.R. for the year 1986-87 is existing against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was not found suitable in the said D.P.C."
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, therefore, urged that since consideration of th case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Forester was done in accordance with law and on account of adverse entries for the year 1986-87, he could not be so promoted in the year 1993, therefore, there was no illegality in promoting the petitioner against the vacancies of the year 1993 as Forester. He further submitted that the Department has information to the effect that the petitioner Amar Singh has already expired during the pendency of writ petition on 15.9.2003 and no steps have been taken to bring his LRs. on record.;