SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN): --This is an appeal by Munir Hussain Shah against the order dated 7-6-1992 of Secretary, Forests Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir by which the order of his promotion dated 24-12-1991 made by the Chief Conservator Forests was cancelled and in his stead respondent No. 2 Mir Sajjad Hussain was promoted to the post of Forest Guard. The appellant has impleaded Secretary, Forests Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Mir Sajjad Hussain as respondents in this appeal for the redress of his grievances.
The relevant facts as are contained in the memo of his appeal are that, the appellant joined the service of Forest Department on 15-2-1981 as Baildar/Watcher and has been performing his duties as such to the best of satisfaction of his superior officers. Mir Sajjad Hussain, respondent No. 2 was employed as Baildar/Watcher w.e.f. 26-1-1986. The appellant feels himself aggrieved by the fact that he was senior to respondent No. 2 but his seniority was ignored and the respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Forest Guard on 16-9-1990. The appellant brought an appeal before Conservator of Forests against the said order of promotion of respondent No. 2 but his appeal was forwarded to C.C.F and the later after having accepted his appeal by his order dated 24-12-1991 had annulled the order of promotion of respondent No.2. Subsequently the respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Secretary, Forests despite in the fact that there existed no provision for second appeal to an aggrieved civil servant against the order of first appellate Authority. Under the impugned order, the Secretary, Forests cancelled the order of C.C.F and reverted the appellant to his original post of Watcher. Hence the appellant has brought the present appeal to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 of Service Tribunal Act, 1975.
3. It is prayed by the appellant that the impugned order dated 7-6-1992 passed by the Secretary, Forests Department may be set aside and the order of Chief Conservator of Forests dated 24-12- 1991 be restored by which he was held entitled to promotion to the post of Forest Guard.
4. By a short order of this Tribunal dated 1-7-1992, the above-noted appeal was admitted for regular hearing in this Tribunal on the following points of law and facts:--
(i) Whether a second appeal before the next Authority against the order of appellate Authority is permitted by law to an aggrieved civil servant ?
(ii) If the point No. 1 is answered in affirmative whether the impugned order passed by the Secretary, Forests is maintainable in law ?
(iii) To what relief, the appellant is entitled ?
4-A. The objections taken by the respondents are that the present appeal is not maintainable at this forum for the reasons that it is not brought against the order of a departmental Authority. The Chief Conservator of Forests Department was not competent to hear the appeal of the appellant and as such the order of C.C.F. By which the appellant has been held entitled to promotion to the post of Forest Guard was illegal and inoperative for being without jurisdiction. The Secretary,'
Forests Department is quite competent to revise the illegal orders of his subordinate officers at all times. On behalf of respondent-Government it .Is submitted that the respondent No. 2 Mr. Sajjad Hussain has been promoted and appointed on the recommendations of Selection Committee for he had passed the training of Forest Guard and was considered more suitable for the promotion as compared to the appellant. Under rules, the selection of a candidate for the post of Forest Guard is made after assessing his suitability, seniority, fitness and seniority alone is not the sole criterian for making such appointment/promotions.
5. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments as were addressed by the learned counsel of each party. We have also examined the impugned order' and the orders made by the Department in relation to the promotion of appellant and that of respondent No. 2 against the post of Forest Guard The rule prescribed for promotion to the post of Forest Guard from among the Closures Watcher/Baildars is that :-- "20 % of the posts of the Forest Guards are to be filled up by promotion from among Baildars/Watchers, Depot Guards/Nersariesmen on the basis of their seniority-cum-fitness with two years' service as such."
6. There is no denying the fact that the appellant joined the service of the Department much earlier than respondent No. 2 but the question arises whether the inter se seniority between the contesting parties was ever maintained by the Forest Department. The appellant was employed as Watcher on 15-2-1981 and the order of his appointment shows that he was appointed as substitute to work as closure Watcher against the post of somebody else already appointed on that job and the appointment of respondent No. 2 was also made temporarily to be terminated without notice.
While submitting the service particulars of the contesting parties, the Divisional Forest Officer, Officer Incharge of the Integrated Programme of Administration of Land Division, Muzaffarabad has pointed out that service of Closure Watchers and that of Baildars is not a Government service and they get their labour charges on Mestrol. Both the appellant and the respondent No. 2 held temporary posts in the Forest Development Programme for a speed period. If they are not the Government servants then their inter se seniority cannot be determined by the concerned Department and for that reason, the appellant cannot base his claim of promotion to the post of Forest Guard on the basis of his seniority in the Department. If the appellant had not joined the Government service before his promotion to the post of Forest Guard then, of course, he cannot claim himself to be an aggrieved civil servant because the service rendered by him in the Department cannot be regarded as regular service of the Forest Department. The post of Forest Guard has been filled up after considering the claim of the appellant in open competition and he failed to compete with the qualifications of his rival candidate respondent No. 2. We agree with this argument that no second appeal is provided to an aggrieved civil servant against the order of his appellate Authority yet he is entitled to bring a representation before the next higher Authority under Rule 9 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the provisions applicable to the appeals have been made applicable mutatis mutandis to such representation also. Therefore; in our opinion, the Secretary, Forests was quite competent to vacate the order of C.C.F which he had made without jurisdiction. The appellant is not an aggrieved civil servant and as such he is not entitled to seek any relief at this forum.
7. In view of the circumstances as above, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order which is hereby upheld. The appeal is dismissed but no order is given as to costs. The Stay Order issued in favour of the appellant and against the respondents is hereby vacated.