SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik, U.C. Banerjee and S.N. Variava, JJ.

C.A No. 2489 of 1993 with C.A. No. 741-742 of 1995. D/d. 11.4.2001.

Hoshiar Singh Kanwar (D) By L.Rs. - Appellant

Versus

U.O.I. & Ors. - Respondents

Indian Forest Service (Appointment By Promotion) Regulations, 1966 - Regulation 5(5) - Appellant an officer of the Indian Forest Service (IFS) approached the Tribunal claiming the relief of getting an accelerated year of allotment in the IFS as well as promotion from an anterior date - D.P.C in the year 1975 found him unsuitable for being included in the select list - Tribunal found non-inclusion of the appellant in the select list to be justified - No infirmity with the impugned order requiring its interference.

[Para ]

JUDGMENT

C.A. No. 2489 of 1993

1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal). The original appellant was an officer of the Indian Forest Service (IFS). He approached the Tribunal claiming the relief of getting an accelerated year of allotment in the IFS as well as promotion from an anterior date. During the pendency of the matter in this Court, the appellant has died and he has been substituted by his legal representatives.

2. From the impugned judgment of the Tribunal it appears, two contentions had been raised and the Tribunal on consideration of the relevant records, came to the conclusion that the case of the original appellant had been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in the year 1975 but he was not found suitable for being included in the select list. The question of giving him an earlier year of allotment being dependent upon his inclusion in the select list and the Tribunal having found that non-inclusion of the appellant in the select list was justified, did not accept the second contention also. So far as the two conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal, we see no infirmity with the same. Mr. Jain, the learned senior counsel however raised a contention with regard to infraction of the provisions of regulation 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment By Promotion) Regulations, 1966 as well as infraction of sub- regulation (5) of regulation 5. These contentions do not appear to have been raised before the Tribunal and have not been answered and as such, we are not inclined to entertain the same and go into the legality thereof.

3. In the aforesaid premises, we see no infirmity with the impugned order requiring our interference. The civil appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

C.A. Nos. 741-742/1995

4. These appeals raise similar questions as was raised in the case of Hoshiar Singh Kanwar. The Tribunal having considered the relevant contentions and answered the same, we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment so as to be interfered with by this Court. The appeals stand dismissed accordingly.

.