THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE AND FOREST v. SHRI. UDDHAO PANDURANG PATIL AND ORS.

High Court of Bombay, Bombay (Civil)
2025:BHC-AS:44012-DB

Discusses interpretation of rules, statutory duties, legitimate expectations, and constitutional articles related to writ jurisdiction.

Legal Discussion:

  1. Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: The petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227, being aggrieved by the Tribunal's order. The court discusses whether it should interfere with the Tribunal's order under these articles, considering the delay in cadre review. The court ultimately declines to interfere with the Tribunal's order, citing sound reasoning and the nature of the directions issued by the Tribunal, and dismisses the writ petitions.
  2. Article 142 of the Constitution of India: The judgment refers to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's power under Article 142, particularly in the context of mitigating hardship and denial of legitimate rights when there's a delayed exercise of statutory function. The court notes that the Supreme Court reiterated directions issued by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 142.
  3. Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966: The judgment discusses Rule 4(2) of the Cadre Rules, which requires the Central Government to re-examine the strength and composition of each cadre every five years. The court refers to a Supreme Court decision stating that an infraction of these provisions doesn't confer a vested right, but a court can issue directions if there's no explanation for the infraction. The judgment also mentions that the leeway given to the State Government under Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules should not distort the operation of the Rules.
  4. Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1996: The judgment discusses Regulation 5(3), which states that the committee shall not consider members of the State Forest Service who have attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared. It also notes the provisos to this regulation, which allow for consideration in certain circumstances. The court acknowledges that Regulation 5(3) has to be strictly construed.
  5. All India Services Act, 1951: The judgment references Section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1951, noting that the Cadre Rules are statutory in nature, having been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers under this section.
  6. General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the concept of legitimate expectation, holding that the respondent's legitimate expectation of being considered for promotion was defeated by the delay in holding the cadre review. It also touches upon the statutory duty cast on the State and Central Governments to undertake the cadre review exercise every five years, which is ordinarily mandatory. The judgment also considers the interpretation of the word "ordinarily" in the context of promotional opportunities.

List of Laws: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; Article 142 of the Constitution of India; Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966; Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1996; All India Services Act, 1951; General Principles of Law

🔒 Members Only. Become a member to read this Judgment.