2007 (5) TMI 682 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Equivalence of the posts of Assistant Mill Manager (AMM) and Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF).
2. Eligibility of AMM for promotion to Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF) under the relevant Recruitment Rules.
3. Jurisdiction and authority of the Tribunal in declaring equivalence of posts and reviewing its own judgment.
4. Applicability of 1963, 1973, and 1991 Recruitment Rules and Indian Forest Service (IFS) Regulations.
5. Connection of AMM post with forestry for inclusion in the State Forest Service.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Equivalence of AMM and ACF Posts:
The appellant argued that the post of AMM was equivalent to ACF and hence should be considered for promotion to DCF. The 1963 and 1973 Recruitment Rules were cited to support this claim. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal had no authority to declare these posts equivalent, especially when the Recruitment Rules did not provide such equivalence. The High Court emphasized that the channels of promotion for ACF and AMM were different, with AMM being a technical post not connected with forestry, unlike ACF.

2. Eligibility of AMM for Promotion to DCF:
The appellant claimed eligibility for promotion to DCF based on the 1963/1973 Rules and IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. The State opposed this, stating that AMM was part of a technical channel with no claim to forestry posts like ACF and DCF. The Tribunal initially rejected the appellant's claim, stating that AMM was not part of the State Forest Service and not connected with forestry. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the post of AMM lacked the necessary forestry connection and qualifications required for ACF.

3. Tribunal's Jurisdiction and Authority:
The Tribunal initially rejected the appellant's claim but later reversed its decision in a review, which the High Court found unjustified. The High Court stated that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by rewriting Recruitment Rules and failed to point out any apparent error on the record to justify the review. The Tribunal's action was deemed as sitting as an appellate authority over its own judgment, which was impermissible.

4. Applicability of Recruitment Rules and IFS Regulations:
The appellant's claim was based on the 1963 and 1973 Rules, which were argued to be still in vogue. However, the High Court and the State pointed out that the 1991 Rules created a new service excluding AMM from the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Forest Service. The High Court concluded that the 1963 Rules were impliedly repealed by the 1991 Rules, which only included ACF for promotion to DCF. The High Court also noted that the post of DCF was now part of the IFS cadre, governed by IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, and related regulations.

5. Connection of AMM Post with Forestry:
The appellant argued that the post of AMM was connected with forestry and thus should be included in the State Forest Service. The High Court rejected this, stating that AMM's duties were technical and not related to forestry management or policy. The qualifications for AMM were also different from those required for ACF, further supporting the view that AMM was not connected with forestry. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's initial finding that AMM was not a forestry post and thus not eligible for promotion to DCF.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, with the High Court affirming that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in reviewing its own judgment and declaring equivalence of posts. The post of AMM was found to be a technical position, not connected with forestry, and thus not eligible for promotion to DCF under the relevant Recruitment Rules and IFS Regulations. The 1991 Rules were held to have created a new service structure, excluding AMM from the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Forest Service.