IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.10076 of 2008 Date of decision : May 16, 2011 Harinder Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner was employed as a Timber Watcher in the Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh, on 7th January, 1998. Recruitment and Promotion Rules, copy Annexure A-2, provide for appointment of Timber Watchers to the posts of Forest Guards, on the basis of Limited Direct Recruitment. Out of the total posts of Forest Guards, 10 per cent are reserved for appointment of Timber Watchers, on the basis of Limited Direct Recruitment. 2. On 20th December, 2002, a Memorandum, copy Annexure R-2, was issued by the Forest Department, per which 393 posts of Forest Guards were to be filled. Out of these 393 posts, 93 posts were reserved; 22 for Ex- servicemen, 59 for Home Guards and 12 for Sports Persons. These Ex-servicemen, Home Guards and Sports Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Persons were to be the persons not already employed in the Forest Department or the Forest Corporation. 300 posts were to be filled from amongst the Timber Watchers, on the basis of Limited Direct Recruitment Scheme, provided in the Rules, copy Annexure A-2. 3. Petitioner, on account of fulfilling the eligibility criteria, also applied, as a Departmental candidate, for appointment against one of the 300 posts meant for Departmental candidates (Timber Watchers). Petitioner was found eligible and his application was forwarded to the Conservator of Forests, Dharamshala, vide letter dated 30th December, 2002, copy Annexure R-3. In this Annexure R-3, it was written, against the name of the petitioner, in the remarks column, that he was the ward of a Freedom Fighter. Written examination was held thereafter. Some other tests were also conducted and ultimately final result was declared, vide Memorandum dated 29th September, 2003, copy Annexure R-4. Petitioner’s name did not appear in that category. His grievance is that he should have been selected and appointed against the roster points, meant for wards of Freedom Fighters. 4. In their reply, the respondents have stated that no posts are reserved for the wards of Freedom Fighters, when the recruitment is made by way of Limited Direct Recruitment. Reservation is stated to be available only to the candidates belonging to SC, ST and OBC categories, …3… and not in the case of Limited Direct Recruitment, meant for Departmental candidates. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Recruitment and Promotion Rules, copy Annexure A-2, do not provide for reservation for children/ wards of Freedom Fighters, when the recruitment is to be made against the 10 per cent posts of Forest Guards, earmarked for Limited Direct Recruitment, for which only the Departmental candidates are considered. 7. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has drawn my attention to communication dated 20th December, 2002, copy Annexure R-2, by which process for filling 393 posts was initiated. Reading first paragraph of Annexure R-2, he submits that reservation was there for Ex-servicemen, Home Guards and Sports Persons etc. According to him word “etc.” used in paragraph-1, suggests that reservation was also there for categories other than those of Ex-servicemen, Home Guards, Sports Persons. 8. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. There is a chart, indicating the posts reserved for different categories. There were 393 posts in all. 300 posts were meant for Departmental candidates, which were to be filled, in accordance with Limited Departmental Recruitment process, 22 posts were reserved for Ex- servicemen, 59 for Home Guards and 12 for Sports …4… Persons. The total of all these posts, earmarked for different categories, is equal to the number of the total 393 posts sought to be filled. Memorandum Annexure R-2 nowhere says that out of 300 posts, meant for Limited Departmental Recruitment, any post was reserved for wards of Freedom Fighters or categories other than SCs, STs and OBCs, for which General Instructions of reservation are applicable, in all the Departments, in the matter of recruitments, including promotions. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed. May 16, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J