Case Law Details
1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner herein Shri Narayan Singh Chauhan seeks issuance of writ of quo warranto against respondent No.3 Shri Arvind Anil Boaz questioning his selection and appointment on the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) and for his consequent removal from the said post of PCCF.
2. Essential facts shorn of all paraphernalia requisite to adjudicate the lis are as under: –
2.1) The petitioner claims to be former senior journalist and further claims to have held senior positions in editorial boards of several newspapers like Deshbandhu and Jansatta and also claims to be a whistle-blower and an activist.
2.2) Respondent No.3, a member of Indian Forest Service, was selected by the selection committee for the post of PCCFon 30-8-2013 and thereafter, he was appointed on the said post of PCCF by order of the State Government dated 30-6- 2015. The petitioner herein has challenged respondent No. 3’s selection and appointment seeking writ of quo warranto mainly on the ground that the Departmental Promotion Committee which considered selection for the post of PCCF did not apply the standard prescribed by itself in promotion for the post of PCCF, as the Committee acted arbitrarily in considering the ten confidential reports of respondent No.3. It was further pleaded that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary and two other members for the purpose of considering promotion from the post of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, on 30-8-2013 approved the name of respondent No.3 for the said post. It was also pleaded that the said DPC had decided that the confidential reports of past ten years would be considered, eight of which at least should have been grade as “Very Good” and remaining two should be graded as “Good” and in case a particular year’s confidential report was not available or was not capable of being considered, then the previous year’s confidential report will be considered. It was also pleaded that the respondents while considering the case of respondent No.3 for the post of PCCF as per the rules laid down were supposed to consider the confidential reports from the year 2002-2003 to 2011-2012, but confidential reports for the years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 were said to be unavailable, as during that period respondent No.3 was said to be posted in SACEP (South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme) at Sri Lanka and since these confidential reports were unavailable, four confidential reports of the years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1999-2000 and 2001- 2002 were taken into consideration and on this basis, respondent No.3 was considered and found fit for promotion to the post of PCCF. It has also been pleaded that as per the Government of India’s circular dated 12-9-1997, Annual Confidential Report (ACR) has to be written when an officer is on deputation in an international organization. It has further been pleaded that the Rules provide that ACR is not required to be written in respect of a member of the All India Services for the period of service in an international organization and the Rules further provide that any Assessment Report for the period of service shall not form part of ACR dossier but shall be kept along with other personal records maintained by the Central Government / State Government. It has finally been argued that respondent No.3 was wrongly appointed on the post of PCCF for the reason that the Selection Committee did not follow the procedure laid down by it and there was no reason not to take into account the Confidential Reports while he was posted in SACEP, Sri Lanka. The Committee had taken into consideration the confidential reports much prior to posting of respondent No.3 in SACEP, Sri Lanka which ought not to have been taken into consideration and did not take into consideration the confidential reports which ought to have been taken into consideration and this view of the Selection Committee is wholly erroneous and the Departmental Promotion Committee has arbitrarily selected the Confidential Reports without following the chronological order, as the DPC has erred in exempting production of Confidential Reports of four years when respondent No.3 was on deputation in SACEP, Sri Lanka, and therefore respondent No.3 was not selected properly and his selection and appointment on the post of PCCF be declared to be null and void by issuance of writ of quo warranto.
3. Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that selection of respondent No.3 on the post of PCCF is made as per the guidelines dated 16-4-2009 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India formulated under the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008, which have been made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951. As per the guidelines, parameters of selection on the post of PCCF are outstanding merit, competence, absolute integrity and having specific suitability for the post. She would further submit that the Departmental Promotion Committee without any explanation deviated from its own procedure and dropped the confidential reports of the years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2000-2001 and hence there is no transparency to ensure the parameters laid down in the guidelines dated 16-4-2009 issued by the Central Government and a person with a tainted reputation has been appointed as PCCF in violation of the prescribed guidelines and rules, and this is a fit case where a writ of quo warranto deserves to be issued for removal of respondent No.3 from the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
