\ #e] Date Order with Signature Office Note as toaction(ifany) NO. o',0der oh-Order taken on Order r 0. 22.7. WP IC` No. 20 of 2005 I:-..--=- 8 Present: Mr.. 8. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.K. Itharka, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.P. Wangdi, Advocate General with Mr. J.B. Pradhan, Govt. Advocate for the State-Respondents. Mr. A.Moulik, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kessang Diki Bhutia, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 17.Thisisawritpetitionfiledoriginany by 7 writ petitioners, out of whom Nos. 3 and 7 have dropped out. The writ petitioners were all aspirants to the posts of Block Officers in the Forest Department in the State of Sikkim and thus, took an exanination which was held in September 2003. 2229 candidates appeared in that examination and out of that number 269 were called for the interview. After interviews were held, 20 persons were selected and they were giveri appointments as Block Officers as will appear from Annexure P-4 of the writ petition which is a document calling for the 20 to report to the office for.further details on Ub. i I. . Zuu3. rh2 Se Date Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of action (if any) Order Order taken on Order So far the writ petitioners can raise no ; grlevance and they raise none. They object to Annexure P-5 which is a document dated 01.04.2005, wherein 14 persons were appointed as untrained Block Officers and put on a probation period of 2 years of training. It is the case of the wit petitioners that those 14 were hot selected out of the said interview, but they have been selected irregularly which is prohibited by the law.TheState-respondents say that these 14 persons, who were legularised', had been working as Block Officers from the year 2000- 2001. In December 2000 there occurred suddenly a big shortage of Block Ofricers in the Forest Department. That was also a time when there was a big State scandal regarding indiscriminate felling of an enomous number of trees, especially in North Sikhim region, and of smuggling out of exotic trees and timber. There was litigation and the CBI was also involved. rr`L_ _I 1___ ____I__i__ ___i _I -1_ _ 1 ,. . . . ' . . ' ' ' . ..I , I , ' , respondents was granted at that tine. The :er,a,` Do#e Order with Signature Office Note as toaction(ifany) 0 Order taken on Order State feels sympathetic towards the 14 respondents. According to the records they have worked faithfully and effectively and also in the comparatively difficult region of cold North Sikkim.These 14 persons also took the examination of September 2003 and they were called to the interview, The petitioners were also called to the interview, but neither the petitioners nor the respondents were selected pursuant to the interview. The 20 persons who cleared the interview are quite different people and they are not parties to the instant writ petition.On behalf of the private respondents it is submitted that the regularization date of theirs is anterior to the date of pronouncement of the Judgment in Uma Devi's case. According to them such regularization would not be against any decision by any Constitutional Bench of the --I,-,,,I,-,.-,-q,,,,,_--I--_`--`-, was effected by the Government. SeNO. Dateofd Order with Signature Office Note as toaction(ifany)takenonOrder OrderI Orer It has to be borne in mind that this writ I:i-:-,,:+--.u\ petition is not a public interest mgation nor is it the usual type of regularization petition where the ad-hoc worker petitions to the Court for regularization and the State-respondents are in the opposition. Here the issue arises in quite a different way, at the instance of a third party.Thepetitionersdonotprovebefore the Court or give any materials which are sufficient to indicate that they were amongst the next 14 candidates in the interview results after the 20 selected were selected. As such, even if we create holes by picking out the 14 working respondents from the Forest Department, wc cannot insert the 5 writ petitioners in those 14 vacancies or in 5 of those 14 vacancies because they are not shown as the next most meritorious candidates. The only other way we can look at the grievance of the writ petitioners is the public interest way, which means we would have to un-employ the 14 respondents and call for a fresh selection to be made by the State for filling of those 14 vacancies now. Some of the Order with Signature Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order respondents have crossed the age linit and they would face additional difficulties in this process. But, as we have pointed out this is not a pubfic interest litigation. The petitioners have to establish some rights of theirs before we can dislodge employed persons from their regular employment. A point was raised about relaxation or enlargement of the direct recruit quota of the Block Officers, since all the 14 regularised respondents have to be considered as direct recruits. Even here the petitioners have a problem about establishing their private rights, because the prospective promotees are Head Forest Guards and none of the Head F`orest Guards have complained in this writ petition or are parties here. Very briefly put it appears to us that although the case of the 14 respondents is not perfect yet the case of the petitioners for Be Date Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of action (if any) Order Order taken on Order perfect. On this basis the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.(A.N. Ray, CJ)(A..Subba,LJ)