JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri. V. K. Singh advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Senior standing counsel on behalf of the Union of India, Sri Bal Mukund on behalf of respondent No. 2, Sri Satish Chaturvedi on behalf of respondent No. 3, Sri Rajni Kant Tiwari and Shri Vishnu Pratap Tiwari on behalf of respondent No. 4, standing counsel on behalf of respondent No. 5 and Sri A. R. Masoodi on behalf of respondent No. 6.
2. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated 3rd September, 2002, passed in Original Application No. 539 of 2002, along with other connected Original Applications, enclosed as Annexure~9 to the writ petition. The original application, giving rise to the judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal under challenge, were filed by the persons who are members of the U. P. State Forest Service eligible for being considered for appointment through promotion to Indian Forest Service U.P. Cadre.
3. The recruitment to Indian Forest Service is made in accordance with the provisions contained in Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, which broadly provides for two modes of recruitment (a) direct recruitment by competitive examination ; and (b) by promotion of substantive members of the State Forest Service.
4. Last recruitment of the State Forest Service Officers of U. P. by promotion to Indian Forest Service was made in the year, 1984. After 12 years the process for recruitment by way of promotion was again under- taken in the year, 1996, A select list was prepared of the eligible officers, which was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, by filing Original Application Nos. 982 of 1996, 972 of 1996 and 1120 of 1996. Trie Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, by means of the judgment and order dated 10.9.1997 set aside the select list with a direction that the select list should be prepared according to yearwise vacancies. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 2663 of 1998 and other connected writ petitions. This Court by means of the judgment and order dated 11th May. 2001, dismissed the writ petitions and thereby the order of the Tribunal was maintained. However, because of the pendency of the aforesaid dispute no selection could take place.
5. In accordance with the aforesaid judgment, the State Government initiated steps for holding a review departmental promotion committee on 7.10.2001. The Union Public Service Commission, however, vide letter dated 26th November, 2001, suggested certain guidelines in the preparation of select list. The State Government in accordance thereto forwarded the seniority list of the eligible officers vide letter dated 20th February, 2002 along with the seniority list, the State also provided the yearwise break up of the vacancy position wherein in respect of year 1989 one vacancy was shown and in respect of the year 1990, 22 vacancies were shown.
6. This yearwise breakup of vacancies gave a cause of dispute between the parties, with regard to vacancies mentioned against the year, 1989 and 1990, as aforesaid .
7. That after cadre review, vide notification dated 30th August, 1990, 20 vacancies more became available for the promotion in the Indian Forest Service Cadre. One set of officers (applicants before the Tribunal and respondents in present petition) claimed that the said vacancies having been sanctioned in the year, 1990, after cadre review vide notification, the same should be treated to be the vacancies of 1990 : only in the yearwise break up. The petitioners (who were respondents in the original applications before the Tribunal) on the contrary contended that the cadre review was started in the year, 1989 and, therefore, the 20 vacancies sanctioned under notification of the Central Government dated 30.8.1990 should be treated to be the vacancies of the year, 1989, i.e., when the cadre review was initiated. The year to which vacancy is to be related necessarily determines number of candidates eligible for being considered for promotion inasmuch as if the vacancies relate to the year 1989, only candidates who became entitled as on 1st July, 1989, would be entitled to be considered and if the vacancies are related to the year, 1990, candidates who fulfil the eligibility as on 1st January, 1990, would become entitled to be considered. Further candidates who attain the age of 54 years in the year, 1989 would be out of consideration in the year, 1990.
8. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and having regard to the orders Issued from time to time by the State Government, vide judgment dated 3rd September, 2003, held that the vacancies which comes into existence on publication of the notification dated 30.8.1990 (namely 20 in number), after cadre review, cannot be treated as anticipated vacancies for the year, 1989 and accordingly held that the said vacancies are to be treated as vacancies of the year, 1990. The Tribunal accordingly directed the Union Public Service Commission as well as the State Authorities to take all necessary steps -for promotion of the eligible officers to Indian Forest Service within three months. The said order of the Tribunal is under challenge before us.
9. Before this Court the controversy between the parties is confined to the issue as to whether 20 vacancies sanctioned under Government order dated 30.8.1990, should be treated as anticipated vacancies for the year, 1989 or as the vacancies of the year, 1990. For the purposes of resolving the aforesaid controversy raised by the parties, it would be necessary to refer to the statutory provisions applicable.
10. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
11. Appointment to Indian Forest Service Cadre through promotion is made in accordance with the provisions of Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, framed in exercise of powers under the All India Service Act, 1951. Relevant portion of Rule 4 and Rule 8 reads as follows :
"4. Method of recruitment in the Service.-(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of these rules, the Central Government may recruit to the Service any person from amongst the members of the State Forest Service adjudged suitable in accordance with such regulations as the Central Government may make in consultation with the State Government and the Commission :
Provided that no member holding a post referred to in Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (g) of Rule 2 and so recruited shall at the time recruitment, be allocated to any State cadre other than the cadre of a Union territory.
(2) After the recruitment under Sub-rule (1), subsequent recruitment to the Service, shall be by the following methods, namely :
(a) by a competitive examination ;
(aa) by selection of persons from amongst the Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union who were commissioned after the 1st November, 1962, but before the 10th January, 1968 and who are released in the manner specified in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7A ;
(b) by promotion of substantive members of the State Forest Service.
(3) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the method or methods of recruitment to be adopted for the purpose of filling any particular vacancy or vacancies in the Service as may be required to be filled during any particular period or recruitment, and the number of persons to be recruited by each method shall be determined on each occasion by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission :
Provided that where any such vacancy or vacancies relate to a State Cadre are a Joint Cadre, the State Government concerned shall also be consulted.
8. Recruitment by promotion.-
(1) The Central Government may, on the recommendations of the State Government concerned and in consultation with the Commission and In accordance with such regulations as the Central Government may, after consultation with the State Governments and the Commission from time to time, may recruit to the Service persons by promotion from amongst the substantive members of the State Forest Service.
(2) Where a vacancy occurs In a State Cadre which is to be filled under the provision of this rule the vacancy shall be filled by promotion of a member of the State Forest Service, (3) Where a vacancy occurs in the Joint Cadre which is to be filled under the provision of this rule, the vacancy shall, subject to any agreement in this behalf, be filed by promotion of a member of the State Forest Service of any of the State constituting the group."
12. The percentage of promotion of State Forest Officers to Indian Forest Service is 33-1/3%.
13. The cadre strength of Indian Forest Service is determined in accordance with the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called the Rules, 1966) framed in exercise of the powers conferred Under Section 3(1) of All India Services Act, 1951. Rules 3 and 4 of the aforesaid Rules, 1966 are relevant in the present case and are being quoted herein below :
"3. Constitution of cadres.-(1) There shall be constituted for each State or group of States an Indian Forest Service Cadre.
(2) The Cadre so constituted for State or a group of States is hereinafter referred to as a 'State Cadre' or as the case may be, a "Joint Cadre".
4. Strength of cadres.--(1) The strength and composition of each of the cadres constituted under Rule 3 shall be as determined by regulations made by the Central Government In consultation with the State Government in this behalf.
(2) The Central Government shall, at the intervals of every three years, re-examine the strength and composition of each such cadre In consultation with the State Government concerned and may make such alterations therein as it deems fit :
Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to effect the power of the Central Government to alter the strength and composition of any cadre at any other time : Provided further that the State Government concerned may add for a period not exceeding one year, and with the approval of the Central Government for a further period not exceeding two years, to a State or Joint Cadre one or more posts carrying duties or responsibilities of a like nature to cadre posts."
Note.-There has been an amendment in Rule 4 (2) of the aforesaid Rules on 10th March, 1995. The rules as was existing on the relevant date for the purposes of present writ petition have been quoted above.
14. The Central Government in exercise of powers under the Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules, 1966, in consultation with the State Government, has framed Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter called the Regulations, 1966). The aforesaid Regulations of 1966 laid down the mode and manner of preparation of list of suitable officers and, consultation with the Commission, publication of the select list and appointment to the cadre. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1966 is relevant for our purpose, which is being quoted herein below :
"5. Preparation of a list of suitable officers.(1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet at Intervals not exceeding one year and prepare a list of such members of the State Forest Service as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the Service. The number of members of the State Forest Service included in the course of the period of twelve months, commencing from the date of preparation of the list, in the posts available for them under Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, or 5 per cent of the senior posts shown against items 1 and 2 of the cadre schedule of each State or group of States, whichever is greater.
(2) The Committee shall consider, for inclusion in the said list, the cases of members of the State Forest Service in the order of seniority in that service of a number which is equal to three times the number referred to in sub-regulation (1) :
Provided that such restriction shall not apply in respect of a State where the total number of eligible officers Is less than three times the maximum permissible size of the select list and in such a case the Committee shall consider all the eligible officers :
Provided further that in computing the number for inclusion in the field of consideration, the number of officers referred to in sub- regulation (3) shall be excluded :
Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case of a member of the State Forest Service unless, on the first day of January of the year in which it meets, he is substantive in the State Forest Service and has completed not less than eight years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in post(s) included in the State Forest Service."
15. It is contended by Sri V. K. Singh on behalf of the petitioner that since the last cadre review under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules, 1966, had taken place on 6th October, 1986, the period of interval of three years for cadre review as prescribed under Rule 4, which is mandatory In nature, expired on 5th October, 1989 and as a matter of fact the process of cadre review was started vide letter of Secretary State dated 22.7.1989 and dated 25.10.1989. Therefore, the notification sanctioning 20 posts on 30.8.1990 after cadre review (which was due in the year 1989) would necessarily relate back to the year, 1989 when the process of cadre review was started. More so, because at the relevant time Rule 4 was mandatory in nature and the amendment made in the year, 1995 was not in existence. It is suggested that Rule 4 of the Cadre Rule, being mandatory in nature and cadre review being due In the year, 1989, the sanction of the vacancies as has been done vide notification dated 30.8.1990, would necessarily relate back to the year, 1989 and the vacancies so created shall be deemed to be anticipated vacancies for the year, 1989, and, as such,- the members of the U. P. State Forest Service who had put In more than 8 years of continuous service as on 1st date of 1989 alone are entitled to be considered against the aforesaid 20 vacancies. In support of the said contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In case of S. Ramanathan v. Union of India and Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 118.
16. It is further submitted that the Tribunal had misread the provisions of Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules while holding that word "at the intervals of every three years" in Rule 4 (2) of the Rules, 1966 would mean that there shall be a gap of three years and therefore cadre review subsequent to 1986 became due in the year, 1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to support his argument by dictionary meaning of word "interval".
17. On behalf of the private respondent Sri A. R. Masoodl, with reference to Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 1966, which provides for preparation of the list of suitable officers in respect of anticipated vacancies in the course of the period of 12 months commencing from the date of preparation of the list, strongly contended that the 20 vacancies having been made available after cadre review only on 30th August, 1990 and can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be anticipated vacancies of the year, 1989. It is contended on his behalf that Rule 4 (2) is not mandatory in nature, however in any view, it is suggested that word "interval of every three years" cannot be read in a manner to suggest that the cadre review is to be started and decision be taken immediately on the next date subsequent to three years from the date the earlier cadre review has taken place. It is further contended that if there Is some delay, which is reasonably explained, in either starting of the cadre review or in decision thereof, it cannot be said to be a breach of Rule 4 (2). It is suggested that under Rule 4 (2), the process of cadre review has to be started after intervals of three years and the time taken for the final decision of the said cadre review, which can be explained, does not in any way breach of Rule 4 (2), The vacancies, as such, would become available only in the year in which they are created after such cadre review. It is submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Ramanathan, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in the aforesaid case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cadre review was due after interval of three years in the year, 1987. The cadre review was initiated in the year 1989 and was finalised In the year, 1991. In such a set of fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the increase of the strength of cadre after review has to be treated effective from the year, 1989 when the process of review of the cadre strength was started. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held that there has been no infraction of Rule 4 (2). As suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if it is held that the cadre review was due in the year, 1989 so as to direct that the 20 vacancies in question would be deemed to be anticipated vacancies of the year, 1989. It is lastly submitted that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Ramanathan cannot be relied upon as a proposition of law that in every case 'where the notification of the alteration of the strength of cadre after review is issued after the prescribed period of three years, it would necessarily relate back to the date on which the cadre review was Initiated.
18. On behalf of the Union of India and State Authorities of U.P. contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent have been reiterated and the order of the Tribunal has been justified.
19. On behalf of the Union Public Service Commission it is contended that the Commission has acted in accordance with the seniority list forwarded by the State Authorities and it has no role to play with regards to alteration of the cadre strength as contemplated by Rule 4. From the aforesaid, it Is apparently clear that the dispute between the parties is confined to the Issue :
(a) Whether In the facts of the case Rule 4 (2), which provides for cadre review after intervals of three years, is mandatory or not?
(b) Whether there has been an infraction of said Rule 4 (2) and if so as to whether a direction in the facts of the case of the cadre as increased by notification dated 30.8.1990, should relate back to the date on which the cadre review was started, t.e., 1989?
(c) Whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Ramanathan, has laid down as proposition of law that every infraction of Rule 4 (2) would necessarily result in the strength of the cadre being altered from the date the cadre review was started? If not, from which date the strength of the cadre stands revised after cadre review? Issue No. 1 ;
20. So far as the first issue Is concerned, the answer lies in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Ramanathan (supra) itself, wherein in paragraph 2 amendment made on 10th March, 1995 to Rule 4 (2) has been noticed and the legal position as prevailing prior to amendment has been stated In paragraph 6. For ready reference the relevant paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the amendment has been noticed, is being quoted herein below :
"The aforesaid Cadre Rules, more particularly, Sub-rule (2) thereof, was amended on 10.3.1995 and by such amendment, in place of the expression "at the intervals of every three years", the expression "ordinarily at the intervals of every five years" was substituted. We are, however, concerned in the case in hand with pre-amended provisions."
21. The legal position with regards to Rule 4 (2) being mandatory prior to its amendment has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of the said judgment. The relevant portion whereof reads as follows :
"The question, therefore, arises for consideration is as to what is the effect of Rule 4 (2) of the Cadre Rules as it stood prior to Its amendment in the year 1995 and if there has been an infraction in the matter of compliance of the said Rule, what direction could be given to the appropriate authority? The Cadre Rules are statutory in nature, having been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951. The language of sub- rule (2) of Rule 4, as It stood prior to its amendment is rather peremptory in nature and thus it requires that the Central Government has to re-examine the strength and composition of each cadre in consultation with the State Government concerned and make such alteration therein, as it deems fit."
Thus, it cannot be disputed that Rule 4 (2) prior to its amendment was mandatory in nature. The question now arises as to whether every infraction of aforesaid mandatory requirement would necessarily confer a right upon the party to assert that the increase in the vacancies subsequent to cadre review would necessarily relate back to the date immediately following the date on which the period of three years expires or to the date on which the cadre review was started. It is settled law that every small infraction of a mandatory rule will not render the action invalid.
22. The Issue can be looked at with a different angle. The provisions of Rule 4 of the Cadre Review Rules, 1966, can be read in two parts (a) which requires the Central Government to re-examine the strength of the cadre at the interval of every three years (b) to make such alteration, as deem fit after the review. So far as the first part of the provision is concerned, the same is mandatory as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, second part of the provision which confers a power upon the Central Government to make alteration, as it deem fit, does not prescribe any time limit and is directory in nature. Thus, mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together in said provision. If the mandatory part has been complied with, i.e., cadre review has been started within three years, it would be substantial compliance of the provision, notwithstanding the delay in alteration of the cadre subsequent to the cadre review by the Central Government. The legal position in that regard has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment in Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur v. Municipality Board, Rampur, AIR 1965 SC 895 ; M. Karunanidhi v. H. V. Handa and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 558 and Boothalinga Agencies v. V. T. C. Periaswami Nadar, AIR 1969 SC 110. Issue No. 2 :
23. As already noticed above and as admitted by Sri V. K. Singh, while making submissions in rejoinder that there has been no violation of the mandatory requirement of Rule 4. (2) inasmuch as the cadre review was started prior/immediately on expiry of the interval period of three years and there has been delay only In the issuance of the notification altering the strength of the cadre after such cadre review.
24. It is not necessary to this Court to go into- the question as to whether the word "Intervals" used in Rule 4, as interpreted by the Tribunal in the impugned order means a gap of three years or not inasmuch as it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners himself that there has been no breach in compliance of Rule 4 (2) Inasmuch as in so far as the process of cadre review was started prior/immediately after intervals of three years. The delay complained only with regards to date of notification issued after cadre review has completed.
25. Rule 4 (2) does not mandate that the notification with regards to revision of the strength of the cadre must necessarily relate back to the date on which cadre review was started or was due nor it provides the increased vacancies shall be deemed to have been available from the date the cadre review had been started or was due.
26. Cadre review cannot be said to be a process which can be completed within a day or two. It has necessarily to take some time and in the opinion of the Court the period taken for completion of the proceedings of the cadre review cannot in any manner said to be unjustified in the facts of the case nor there has been an inordinate delay in that regard. There is no basis for asserting that there has been an inordinate delay in the issuance of the notification of increased cadre strength, i.e., 30.8.1990 after the cadre review was started according to his own statement of learned counsel for the petitioner vide letter dated 25.10.1989.
27. In the said circumstances, since the process of the cadre review was started immediately after the interval of three years, there has been no infraction of Rule 4 (2) and further Rule 4 (2) does not mandate that the revision of the cadre strength would in each and every case relate back to the date on which the cadre review was initiated or was due. Reference may also be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Ramanathan (supra), wherein it has been held as follows : "It is no doubt true that an infraction of the aforesaid provisions does not confer a vested right with an employee for requiring the Court to issue any mandamus. But it cannot be denied that if there has been an infraction of the provisions and no explanation is forthcoming from the Central Government, indicating the circumstances under which the exercise could not be undertaken, the aggrieved party may well approach a Court and a Court in its turn would be well within its jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions, depending upon the circumstances of the case."
28. At this stage reference may also be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Administrative Senior Officer v. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC 728, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere delay in undertaking the review process will not, ipso facto, entitle an employee to get a writ of mandamus in the Court and further the Hon'ble Supreme Court held ; undoubtedly, there has been a delay in undertaking such review and consequential delay in preparation of the select list but that delay was found to have been substantively ignored by the Union of India. Therefore, the Court did not grant the relief despite the delay. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not worth acceptance.
29. It is no doubt true that in the case of S. Ramanathan the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that the notification of cadre review issued in the year, 1991 shall relate back to the year when the process for cadre review was started, i.e., 1989 but obviously the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not direct that the said revised cadre would relate back to the year when the cadre review was due, i.e.. 1987. The judgment in the case of S. Ramanathan (supra) does not lay down as proposition of law that in every case where there is delay in issuance of notification after cadre review, it would necessarily relate back to the date on which the cadre review was initiated or to the date on which the cadre" review was due. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Ramanathan had been passed In the peculiar facts and circumstances of aforesaid case, where the cadre review, which was due in the year 1987, was initiated in the year, 1989 and the process thereof was completed in the year, 1991.
Issue No. 3 :
30. The only issue which now remains is as to from which date the vacancies become available in the cadre subsequent to its review under Rule 4 (2). The Regulations, 1966, provide that the strength and composition of cadre of the Indian Forest Service in each of the State shall be as specified in the Schedule to the regulations. For ready reference Rule 2 is being quoted herein below :
"2. Strength and Composition of cadres. -The posts borne on, and the strength and composition of the cadre of, the Indian Forest Service in each of the State shall be as specified in the Schedule to these Regulations."
31. It is, thus, apparent that the strength of the cadre can be said to have been increased after cadre review only when the notification providing for increase of the strength of the State cadre by amendment to the Schedule attached to the said Regulations is issued. Unless and until the Schedule to the Regulations, 1966, with regards to the strength and composition of cadre is altered, it cannot be said that the vacancies after cadre review have become available in the cadre. In such circumstances, it is only the date on which the notification altering the schedule to the Regulations, 1966 is issued, the vacancies become available in the cadre,
32. In view of the aforesaid, none of the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are sustainable in the eyes of law. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. No order as to costs.