HK3H COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAniSGARH: BILASPUR jDiWSIQNBeNffH CORAM : HON'BLE SHR1 S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH, J. WnitPetition N0,288 OF20(M> PETITiQNER A.W.Khan Aged about 43 years S/o Late Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan Vansewak Division Forest Working Plan-Division, Durg (C.G.) R/o. House No. 134/39, Near Majar Kelabadi, Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ^ 1. Present: 2 StateetWMIisaf BX.S.1 Ra^aw (C.S.) State of Madh^ Pradesh Through Secretary Forest Department Govt. of M.P. Vailabh Bhawan, Bhofal (M.P.) Samajik Vaniki Prashikshan Sansttia (Forest School) Shivpuri (M.P.) Through Conseivsrtor of Forest Shivpuri (M.P.) Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. UUsarsh Verma, leamed Oy. Govt Adv. for tha State./ respondentNo.1. ORALOFBBER {Passed on 2^ January 2006) The following oral order <rf the Court was passed by S.R. NAYAK. CJ: 7-- The grieyancs of the petittoner is that sincs he has secured second position in the training of Samajik Vanikee Prashikshan Sansthan Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh) in ths sccth bateh, he pught to have been appointed as Assistant Forest Extension Officer (Sahayak Vanvistar Adhikari) in the pay-scale of Rs.975 - 1^0, the then exisBng scate in terms of the administrative instructions issued by the State Government of Madh^ Pradesh. The above claim of the petitioner was rejected by the department and when that action was assailed before the State Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal too refused the relief to Uie petitioner. Hence, Uiis petition under Articles 22S1227 <rf the Constitution of India. (2) We have heard leamed counsel for the parties. Shri V.G. Tamaskar, leamed counse! for the petitioner woutd contend that since the petitioner has secured 74.20% marks in sbdh bateh training and secured second rank among Uie teappers, he ought to have been appointsd as Assistant Forest Extension Offlcer on par witti the treabnent meted out to Shri Prakash Chand Tripathi who had secured only 74.37% marks in sixth bateh who is appointsd as Assistant Forest Exlension Qfficer. It was further contended ttiat one Shri Vanshpati Mishra ttiough secured second rank among the toppers and secured less than 75% marks in some other bateh was appointed as Assistant Forest Extension OfRcer and the acCon <rf the department not to extend simiiar trsahnent to the petitioner would tantamount to an insridfous discrimmation yiolating Aiticte 14 postutates. Leamed Govt. Advocate, per confra, would support the impugned action in denyfng the appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Forest Extenston ^^^S.T'., 3 Officer and would point out that the argumerrts advanced <m behatf of the peWoner are based on misconcewed facte. (3) Having heard leamed counsel for the ;arties, we do not find any merit in the contenUon advanced by Shri V.G. Tamaskar, leamed counsel for the peUUoner. (4) The administrative inslrucUons issued by ttie Govemment from time to time providing for deputafon of Ihe toppers in the taiining to undergo training for the post of Assistant Forest Extension Offlcer have been referred to by the State AdministraUve Tribunal in i»ra6 of the order dated 01.09.19% made in OA No. 135/1989, which reads as foltows: "tn reply, it has been submittBd for the respondents ftat the department eoncerned considered that those candidates who are the toppers in the training of Van Sswak should be sent for the training of Assistant Forest Extension Officer ause it was considered as a reward for ensuring better performance in the training. Therefore, those who topp«l the list no percentage of marte obtainsd by them was prescribed. Proposal for gh/ing the said advantage to the toppers in the list is Annexure R/tl. The sakl proposal was approved by the govemment. The said reward was not being regutated by any stahrtory rute. Thereafter, 'rt was considsred ttat those candidatss who stand second but secured 75 per cent of marics in total and must have s«;ured minimum 66 per cent in each subject be also givsn the same reward. The said proposal was accepted by the Govsmmerrt. Thereafter, the names of those candldates who stood second, but could rart oMain 75 per cent of marte in total or 66 per cent of marks in each subjwt were sent to the State Govemment for granting the same reward to them ui^5^^. •^^fc -^ Lf( as was being granted to fts teppere ofthe said examinatton. However, the Stete Govemment did not agree with the said proposal which was tumed down." The corrscbiess of the observaBons made by the Tribunal h para 6 te not disputed before us. As per ttie administrative instrucfions, V ths second toppsr in Uie merit list secures 75% or more marte in tote! and mjnimum of 66% marte in each subject, he can be appointed to ttie post of Assistant Forest Extension OfRcer and not olherwise. There is no confroversy between the parties that the petitioner secured only 74.20 % marks in the sixth bateh examination in E^gregate. Therefore, in terms ofthe administrative instrucUon issued by the Govemment, hs would not be entitled to appointment to the post of Assistant Forest Extensfon Officer. But, Shri V.G. Tamaster, teamsd counsel for the peUfa'oner would not rest at that. He would contsnd that the denial <rf appoinfrnent to fche petitioner for the post of Assistant Forest Extensfon Offlcer tantamounts to invidious discrimination, because, Shri Prakash Chand Tripathi and Shri Vanshpatl Mishra, similariy circun'Btanced, were appointed to the post of Assistant Forest Extension Officer. This argument is buitt upon misconceiyed facts. tt needs to be n<^ced that in the case of Shri Prakash Chand Tripathi, he was the topper(1 Rank holder) and he had secursd 74.37% of marks, therefore, in tenns of the administrative instructions then prevailing, hewas rightly appointsd to the post of Assistent Forest Extension Officer. As regards Shri Vanshpati Mishra, as could be seen from Annexure P/8, he was also ttie topper (1st Rank holder) and, therefore, in terms of the adminisfrafive instructions he was also entitled to be appointBd to the post of Assistont Fore^ Extension OfRcer. Be ttiat as it may, even assuming that the ?"^§& •' -5 73 ^'v>^ ^' department appointed an ineligibte person to tte post of Assistant Forsst Extension Officsr, that circumstance itself coukl not be a justification for the Court to issue mandamus to appoint anottier ineligibte person to the post of Assistant Forest Extension Officer. hAandamus shalt never go to any authority to do something in breach of lavy or binding adminisbative instructions. The writ petition is devold of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- TheChiefJustice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Ft ! • i