Madan Lal Vs State of Hp

For the petitioner: Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State. None for respondents No.5 to 27.

¶10

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶11

CMP(T) No.557 of 2025

¶12

In view of the averments made in the

¶13

application for early hearing, the same is allowed and disposed of.

¶14

CWPOA No.6002 of 2019

¶15

2. Petitioner, Madan Lal, has initially filed OA No.7337 of 2018, which upon abolition of State Administrative Tribunal stands transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.6002 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs:-

¶16

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

2025:HHC:34714

¶18

2

¶19

“7(i) That the Office Order dated 30.01.2018 (Annexure A-5) be quashed for all intents and purposes.

¶20

7(ii) That the respondents department may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of the Range Officer in term of the seniority list for all intents and purposes over and above his juniors with all consequential benefits.”

¶21

FACTUAL MATRIX:

¶22

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that he

¶23

was appointed as Forest Guard in Wildlife Circle, Shimla, on 13.11.1985 and in terms of order dated 05.07.1995, he was transferred from Wildlife Circle, Shimla to Rampur Forest Circle, upon his consent willingly and his seniority in Rampur Circle was assigned as Forest Guard w.e.f. 29.09.1995, i.e. the date of his joining in Rampur Circle. It is further averred that on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC], the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Deputy Ranger in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 + GP Rs.4600/- on 30.07.2015, Annexure A-2, whereby, the period from 06.01.2012 was treated as ‘Notional promotion period as Deputy Ranger’ and w.e.f. 29.07.2015 as ‘ Deputy Ranger on actual basis’. It is further averred that the Respondent-Department issued the Final Seniority

¶24

2025:HHC:34714

¶25

3

¶26

List of Deputy Rangers, showing position as on 31.12.2015, Annexure A-3, wherein, petitioner, Madan Lal, was shown at Serial No.407 with Seniority No.274 in the said List. It is further averred that the Respondent-State had notified the Recruitment & Promotion Rules [R&P Rules] for the post of Range Forest Officer, Class-II [Gazetted] dated 06.10.2016, Annexure A-4, whereby, the promotional post of Ranger Forest Officer was non-selection post, which was to be filled up 55% by way of promotion from amongst the Deputy Rangers having 4 years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc service, if any, in the grade. It is submitted that

¶27

as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules, though, the petitioner had completed more than 4 years of regular service as Deputy Ranger, but the respondents issued an Order dated 30.01.2018, Annexure A-5, whereby, allegedly, the junior Deputy Rangers were promoted as Range Forest Officers [Class-II Gazetted] on ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement. Petitioner has assailed the promotion orders dated 30.01.2018, Annexure A-5, alleging that the persons who have

¶28

2025:HHC:34714

¶29

4

¶30

been promoted as Range Forest Officers are junior to the petitioner and without considering the petitioner, who was senior, the promotion of juniors was bad in law and in this background, the prayer has been made to consider to promote the petitioner as Ranger Forest Officer from the date the alleged juniors were promoted on 30.01.2018,

¶31

Annexure A-5.

¶32

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES-RESPONDENTS:

¶33

4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the official respondents No.1 to 4 have filed ReplyAffidavit dated 06.05.2019 on the affidavit of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests [HoFF], Shimla.

¶34

4(i). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard in Wildlife Circle on 13.11.1985 and on his request, he was transferred to Rampur Forest Circle on 05.07.1995 and, therefore, his seniority as Forest Guard was determined in Rampur Circle w.e.f. the date of his joining in the said Circle, i.e. on 20.09.1995. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that on 22.05.2015, the State Authorities initiated proposal

¶35

2025:HHC:34714

¶36

5

¶37

that seniority of Forest Guards for promotion to the post of Deputy Rangers may be considered from the date of appointment, because State Level Seniority is prepared for Deputy Ranger Cadre. 4(ii). Perusal of Para-5 and 6 of ReplyAffidavit indicates that petitioner, Madan Lal, was promoted from the post of Forest Guard to the post of Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 06.01.2012 on ‘notional basis’. It is borne out from the Reply-Affidavit that State Authorities have issued Final Seniority List of Deputy Rangers as it stood on 31.02.2015 on 31.03.2016 [which is already enclosed as Annexure R-II],

¶38

but in view of the Reviewed Decision of Government taken on 20.12.2016, the said Seniority List was withdrawn by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, vide letter dated 17.01.2017, Annexure R-II. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that 60 Deputy Rangers were promoted to the rank of Range Forest Officers on ad hoc as per Notification dated 31.01.2018 [Annexure A-5 in the writ file] and such promotion was made on the basis of Seniority List of Deputy

¶39

2025:HHC:34714

¶40

6

¶41

Rangers as on 31.12.2014, which was issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 31.03.2015. Reply Affidavit further indicates that at the time of promotion of 60 Deputy Rangers to the post of Range Forest Officers on 31.01.2018, the Respondents in the Reply-Affidavit averred that the Private Respondents No.5 to 27, were senior to the petitioner and were duly considered for promotion as per placement in the Seniority List of Deputy Rangers in terms of earlier Seniority List of Deputy Rangers as on 31.12.2014, in which name of the petitioner did not figure in view of his Inter-Circle

¶42

Transfer, respectively.

¶43

STAND TAKEN IN REJOINDER:

¶44

5. Petitioner has filed Rejoinder, stating therein that his seniority as Forest Guard should be reckoned from the date of initial appointment and not by way of transfer; with further averments that similar persons have been granted seniority from the date of initial appointment as Forest Guard. However, perusal of Rejoinder, does not dispute the fact that the earlier Seniority List dated 31.12.2015, Annexure A-3, was withdrawn on

¶45

2025:HHC:34714

¶46

7 17.01.2017, Annexure R-II, and notwithstanding these, the promotions from post of Deputy Rangers was made to the posts of Range Forest Officers on 31.01.2018, Annexure A-5, on the basis of Earlier Seniority List of Deputy Rangers as on 31.12.2014, in which Private Respondents, admittedly, figured as senior to the petitioner.

¶47

6. Heard, Mr. Devender Sharma, vice Counsel for Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General.

¶48

ANALYSIS:

¶49

7. Taking into account the entirety of facts

¶50

and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the claim of the petitioner, assailing the promotions of 60 Deputy Rangers as Range Forest Officers, which includes Private Respondents No.5 to 27 on 31.01.2018, Annexure A-5, does not suffer from any infirmity, or illegality for the following

reasons:-

2025:HHC:34714

8

7(i). Perusal of the Recruitment and

¶55

Promotion Rules for the post of Range Forest Officers dated 06.10.2016, Annexure A-4, and Rules 5, 10 and 11 of the aforesaid Rules, clearly provide that the promotional post of Range Forest Officer is nonselection post. It is further borne out that the post of Range Forest Officer is to be filled up 55% by way of promotion from amongst the Deputy Rangers having 4 years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc service, if any, in the grade. The material on record indicates that the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 06.01.2012 in terms of order dated 30.07.2015, Annexure A-2. However, so far as the eligibility based on length of service in the Feeder Grade is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner fulfils 4 years minimum service as Deputy Ranger

¶56

in the Feeder Grade, so as to enable him to have his case considered for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer, in accordance with the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. However, such eligibility cannot in itself confer a right for

¶57

2025:HHC:34714

¶58

9

¶59

automatic promotion. As per Rule-5 of

¶60

the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, the post of Range Forest Officer is promotional post, which is a non-selection post, meaning thereby, that for the purposes of carving out the zone of consideration from amongst the eligible candidates, the actual promotion has to be made on the basis of Senioritycum-Fitness. Reply-Affidavit filed by Respondents No.1 to 4 specifically indicates that based on seniority position as Deputy Rangers as it stood on 31.12.2014, the Private Respondents No.5 to 27 are senior to the petitioner, in the Feeder Cadre of Deputy Rangers. Once Private Respondents No.5 to 27 are senior to the petitioner in the Feeder Grade then, the Private Respondents being seniors, have preferential right to be considered for promotion and upon consideration for resultant promotion, so as to give effect to the mandate of Rule-5 of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, which enables the promotions to be made on the basis of Seniority-cum-Fitness, being nonselection post. In that view of the matter, once the petitioner is, admittedly junior and the Private

¶61

2025:HHC:34714

¶62

10

¶63

Respondents No.5 to 27 are admittedly senior,

¶64

then, no fault can be found in the Notification dated 31.01.2018, Annexure A-5, promoting the

¶65

Deputy Rangers to the post of Range Forest Officers, which includes Private Respondents No.5 to 27, who are senior to the petitioner.

¶66

7(ii). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit further indicates that Private Respondents No.5 to 27 were promoted as Range Forest Officers vide orders dated 31.01.2018, Annexure A-5, on the basis of earlier Seniority List of Deputy Rangers, i.e. Feeder Category as it stood on 31.12.2014. The material on record reveals that the case set up by the petitioner was that he was senior in the subsequent Seniority List of Deputy Rangers as it stood on 31.12.2015 issued on 31.03.2016, Annexure A-3 and, therefore, being senior, he could not have been ignored for promotion at that time, when the Private Respondents No.5 to 27 were promoted. On scanning the Reply-Affidavit, it is amply clear that Seniority List of Deputy Rangers as it stood on 31.12.2015, notified on 31.03.2016 [placed on record as Annexure A-3 in

¶67

2025:HHC:34714

¶68

11

¶69

Wildlife was subsequently withdrawn by respondents on 17.01.2017, Annexure R-II and the withdrawn seniority list dated 31.12.2015/31.03.2016 was never made the basis for making the promotions of Deputy Rangers to the posts of Range Forest Officer(s), including the promotions of Respondents No.5 to 27 on 31.01.2018, Annexure

¶70

A-5, also. 7(iii). Contention of the Learned Counsel

¶71

for the petitioner that his seniority as Forest Guard should have been reckoned from 13.11.1985, i.e. the

¶72

date of his initial appointment and not from the date of his transfer to Rampur Circle and due to incorrect reckoning of seniority upon transfer, his rights have been prejudiced for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer also. This contention, in considered view of this Court, cannot come to

¶73

the rescue of the petitioner, for the reason, that

¶74

the State Authorities have notified the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, for

¶75

the post of Range Forest Officers on 06.10.2016, Annexure A-4, whereby, the promotion to the

¶76

2025:HHC:34714

¶77

12

¶78

post of Range Forest Officer is to be made from amongst the Feeder Category of Deputy Rangers as per Rules 10 and 11 of the said Rules. Mere Inter-Circle Transfer from Wildlife Circle, Shimla to Rampur Forest Circle, as Forest Guard will not be of any assistance when, it is only the immediate Feeder Category of Deputy Ranger which has to be made the basis for making promotion to the post of Range Forest Officers, leading to issuance of promotion orders on 30.01.2018, Annexure A-5. Petitioner has no vested right of promotion. However, the petitioner has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, subject to eligibility and also the petitioner coming within zone of consideration for promotion as Range Forest Officer, as per principle of Seniority-cumFitness, for non-selection post. Mere eligibility and fulfilment of required service in feeder grade of Deputy Ranger will not confer automatic right of promotion. It is the fusion of eligibility and availability of promotional posts and Seniority-cumFitness taken together which confer a fundamental

¶79

2025:HHC:34714

¶80

13

¶81

right of consideration. Lower seniority of petitioner vis-à-vis the higher placement-seniority of Private Respondents No.5 to 27 as feeder grade of Deputy Ranger is good enough to not consider the petitioner -junior for promotion as Range Forest Officer. Accordingly, the Notification dated 30.01.2018 [Annexure A-5] promoting the eligible-seniors, who were fit also for promotion as Range Forest Officer does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

¶82

Besides the above, the claim of the petitioner asserting himself to be senior vis-à-vis Private Respondents No.5 to 27 is misconceived, for the reason, that once petitioner was willingly transferred

¶83

as Forest Guard from Wildlife Circle, Shimla to Rampur Forest Circle on 05.07.1995 and his seniority as Forest Guard was allegedly determined as Forest Guard from the date of said transfer but the petitioner has not laid any challenge to alleged downgrading of

¶84

seniority as Forest Guard, therefore, non-challenge to the aforesaid placement cannot furnish a right

¶85

on the petitioner to claim himself to be senior to private respondents, which does not suffer from any

¶86

2025:HHC:34714

¶87

14

¶88

infirmity. Moreover, the promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer was made as per Notification dated 31.01.2018 [Annexure A-5] and once the Private Respondents No.5 to 27 were senior in the Seniority List of Deputy Rangers as on 31.12.2014 and based on seniority, they were promoted as Range Forest Officers prior to the petitioner coupled with the fact that the petitioner has not assailed the seniority as Deputy Ranger also. In absence of any challenge to the seniority of Deputy Rangers, in the Feeder Grade, from which the appointment-promotion as Range Forest Officers is to be made, therefore, the non-challenge disentitles the petitioner to claim seniority over and above the Private Respondents No.5 to 27, in these proceedings. In this backdrop, the contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit and the same is rejected. Even Seniority List of Forest Guard alleged to have been issued from date of transfer on consent to another circle has not been assailed. Moreover, Seniority List of Deputy Rangers as on 31.12.2014

¶89

2025:HHC:34714

¶90

15

¶91

[Feeder Grade for promotional post of Range Forest Officers] has not been assailed.

¶92

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:

¶93

8. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant writ petition, is dismissed, in the following

¶94

terms:-

¶95

(i) Notification dated 30.01.2018, Annexure A-5, promoting the Private Respondents No.5 to 27 as Range Forest Officers does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality;

¶96

(ii) Petitioner being junior as Deputy Rangers, has no valid claim for consideration for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officers, while promotion the Private Respondents No.5 to 27 as Range Forest Officers on 30.01.2018 [Annexure A-5]; and

¶97

(iii) Costs made easy for respective parties.

¶98

9. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all

¶99

pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.

¶100

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶101

October 09, 2025 [Bhardwaj]

Madan Lal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of H.P

Saran Dass and Ors. Vs State of Hp

Prithvi Singh Vs State of Hp

Dev Raj Vs Hrtc

Deva Chander Negi Vs Dinkar Burathoki

Tilak Raj Vs State of H.P