HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. W.P. Lodging No. 288 (S/S) year 2003 Harish Ram S/o Sri Paddi Ram Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. Approved for reporting. _______________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision. 21.11.2003 Initial of Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Lodging No. 288/2003 Harish Ram S/o Sri Paddi Ram R/o Village Ganeshpur Post Dapti (Kamdevi Devi) District Bageshwar … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Department of Forest, Uttaranchal Shasan Dehradun 2. Conservator of Forest Western Circle Nainital 3. Divisional Forest Officer Tarai East Forest Division Haldwani District Nainital … Respondents Court No. 6 Date: 21.11.2003 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard Sri Manoj Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the respondents. Both the parties have agreed that the matter may be finally disposed of. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3 to give the appointment as Forest Guard to the petitioner. Further prayer has been made by the petitioner for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3 to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that he belong to S.C. category and after having passed intermediate examination from U.P. Board in the year 1980, he has claimed that he has passed all the requisite qualifications for the appointment for the post of Forest Guard in Forest Department. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.09.1995 issued by the respondent no. 3 applications for selection to the post of Forest Guards were invited. 18 vacancies were notified by means of the said notification out of which four were reserved for S.C. category and five for O.B.C. category candidates, and the remaining nine vacancies were unreserved. The petitioner has stated that large number of candidates have applied for the appointment for the post of Forest Guards. The petitioner was also one of them. The selection process consisted of written examination, interview, physical efficiency test and medical test. According to the petitioner the written examination was held on 14.10.1995 and those who were declared successful in the written examination were called for interview which was held on 10.12.1995. The petitioner has further contended that on 18.12.1995 the candidates who have qualified in the earlier two stages of selection process, were subjected to physical efficiency test and as such the petitioner was required to appear for medical check up in Soban Jina Base Hospital, Haldwani on 21.12.2003. The petitioner has further stated in paragraph 8 that the number of candidates were reduced to 15, as such, only 15 candidates were selected for appointment. The name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 11 as will appear from the copy annexure 4. List of the selected candidates are quoted below:- 1 Jh cky d`".k jke iq= Jh Qdhj jke 2 Jh iwju yky lkg iq= Jh xaxkty lkg 3 Jh dkyhpj.k flag ;kno iq= Jh jkttUe 4 Jh mes”k pUnz tks”kh iq= Jh izsecYyHk tks”kh 5 Jh fo”ku jke iq= Jh jke yky 6 Jh uSu flag iq= Jh xaxkjke 7 Jh lqUnj yky iq= Jh xaxkjkeZ 8 Jh nhipUnz mizsrh iq= Jh ihrkEcj mizsrh 9 Jh ckxs”k oekZ iq= Jh dUgS;k yky oekZ 10 Jh veksy dqekj xqIrk iq= Jh jktsUnz izlkn xqIrk 11 Jh gjh”k jke iq= Jh inhjke 12 Jh izdk”k panz tks”kh iq= Jh iwjukuUn tks”kh 13 Jh NksVsyky iq= Jh eqUukyky 14 Jh galknRr nqedk iq= Jh ukFkwjke nqedk 15 Jh txnh”k izlkn iq= Jh ujhjke The petitioner has further stated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the candidates at Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the select/merit list were given regular appointment as Forest Guard by the Respondent No. 3 on 22.12.2003, however the claim of the petitioner was ignored although he stood at Sl. No. 11 of the merit list. So far as the appointment and conditions of service for the post of Forest Guard, the same are governed by the Lower Subordinate Forest Service Rule 1980 which was notified in the official gazette 13.06.1980. So far as the appointing authority of Forest Guard is concerned the same is covered in part 3 of gazette notification dated 13.06.1980 which is quoted below:- “5& lsok eas HkrhZ fuEufyf[kr Lkzksrks dh tk;sxh%& d& teknkj vkSj eksgfjZj && ,d LFkk;h j{kdks ¼oU; tUrq j{kdks dks NksMdj ½ esa ls inksUufr )kjk vkSj nks lh/kh HkrhZ )kjk fVIi.kh && HkrhZ bl izdkj dh tk;sxh fd laoxZ ds 50 izfr”kr in ;Fkk lEHko lh/kk HkrhZ )kjk vkSj 'ks"k inksUufr )kjk /k`r fd;s tk;aA [k& j{kd && ¼1½ 90 izfr”kr fjfDr;kW lh/kh HkrhZ )kjk % ijUrq ,slh 90 izfr”kr fjfDr;ksa esa HkrhZ bl izdkj dh tk;sxh fd] ;FkklEHko&& ¼d½ 25 izfr”kr fjfDr;kW lkoZtfud :i ls Hkjh tk;saA ¼[k½ 65 izfr”kr fjfDr;kW lkef;d deZdkjh esa ls Hkjh tk;saA ¼2½ 10 izfr’kr fjfDr;kW Js.kh pkj ¼lewga ?k½ ds ,sls LFkk;h deZpkfj;ksa esa ls ftUgksus foKku ;k d`f"k esa gkbZLdwy ijh{kk dk izek.k i= gksuk vko”d u gksxk ;fn mudh HkrhZ 4 vxLr 1972 ds iwoZ dh xbZ gks] fdUrq fdlh Hkh n’kk esa mudk twfu;j gkbZ Ldwy ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gksuk vko”;d gSA 6& vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa] vuwlqfpr tu&tkfr;kW vkSj vU; Js.kh ds vH;kfFkZ;ksZ ds fy;s vkj{k.k HkrhZ ds le; izo`Rr ljdkj ds vkns”kks ds vuqlkj fd;k tk;sxkA” Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since there is a provision for 90% direct recruitment for the post of Forest Guard and as such the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the same. The petitioner has stated that on he is fully qualified according to the qualification which is mentioned under Rule 8. The petitioner has stated that on his representation dated 13.09.1996 and he has received a reply from the respondents that there being a restrictions on the recruitment on post of Group-C and Group-D, therefore, the recruitment cannot be made. The contents of the letter dated 13.09.1996 is quoted below:- “mijksDr lanHkZ esa lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns”kksa ds vUrxZr 'kklu )kjk lewg x rFkk ?k ds in ij fu;qfDr ij izfrcU/k yxk fn;s tkus ds dkj.k 'ks"k vH;kfFkZ;ks dh fu;qfDr ugh dh tk ldh gSA vr% bl fo"k; ij vfxze dk;Zokgh U;k;ky; ds vfxze fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj gh fd;k tkuk lEHko gksxkA” The petitioner has further submitted that the persons who are in merit list at Sl. No. 6 has approached in writ petition no. 3806 (S/S) of 2001 namely, Nain Singh Vs. State and others, and on a direction made in the writ petition on 14.05.2003 Sri Nain Singh has been recruitment on the post of Forest Guard. The petitioner has also referred the judgment of this Hon’ble Court which provides as under:- “In compliance of the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred a representation before the D.F.O. Tarai East Forest Division, Haldwani and the respondent has passed order on 13.09.1996 to the effect that since there is ban imposed by the government for recruitment on the posts of group C and D and as such at present the petitioner cannot be given appointment. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit in which in paragraph no. 7 he has categorically stated that the Ganesh Lal Sah has been given appointment on 30.02.2001, copy of the appointment order is annexure SA3 to the supplementary affidavit. In view of the facts that the respondents have given appointment to Sri Ganesh Lal Sah on 30.07.2001 the respondents cannot deny the petitioner to provide appointment on the ground that the government has imposed ban on the recruitment group C and D. For the reasons stated above the respondent no. 3 will pass appropriate orders for the appointment of the petitioner as forest guard ignoring the plea that there is ban imposed by the government on making appointment on the posts of group C and group D if Sri Ganesh Las Sah as alleged by the petitioner has been given appointment by the respondents on 30.07.2001.” On 21.10.2003 the order has been passed by the Tarai East Forest Division, Haldwani in pursuance of the aforesaid order perused by this Hon’ble Court order dated 21.10.2003 is quoted below:- “flfoy felysfu;l fjV isVh’ku la0 3806@,l0,l0@2001 iqjkuk uEcj 14509 vkQ 1997 uSu cuke jkT;kfn es ek0 mPp U;k;ky; uSuhrky )kjk fn0 14-5-2003 dks ikfjr vkns”kksa ds vuqikyu ds lEcU/k esa lfpo] mRrjkWpy 'kklu nsgjknwu ds 'kklukns”k lW0 fjV& 284@1¼1½ o0xzk0fo0@2003&1¼66½&2003 fn0 21-10-2003 )kjk tkjh dh x;h vf/klwpuk la0893@25-3-1 fn0 26-9-95 )kjk izkIr funs’kksaZ ds vuqikyu esa rRdkyhu izHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh] rjkbZ iwohZ ou izHkkx )kjk tkjh dh x;h vf/klwpuk la0893@25-3-1 fn0 26-9-95 )kjk vf/klwfpr ou j{kdks ds fjDr inksa dks Hkjus gsrq yh x;h fyf[kr ,oa 'kkjhfjd ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZ rFkk foHkkxh; p;u lfefr )kjk fn0 10-12-95 dks fy;s x;s lk{kkRdkj ds ifj.kke Lo:I mRrh.kZ ?kksf"kr ]Jh uSu flag usxh] iq= Jh xaxk flga dks] ftudh fu;qfDr ]”kklukns”k la0 3607¼Vh½@14- 2-95 fn01-12-95 )kjk lewg x o ?k ds inks ij lh/kh HkrhZ ij yxh jksd ds dkj.k rv ugh dh tk ldh Fkh] ou j{kd ds in ij osrueku 2750&70&3800&75&4400 esa fu;ekuqlkj vuqeU; vU; leLr HkRrksa lfgr] fuEu 'krksZ ds v/khu dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls furkUr vLFkk;h rkSj ij ,rn )kjk fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vudh rSukrh n0tkSlklky jsat es dh tkrh gSA The petitioner has stated that the ban which was imposed is no more in existence and as such the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the appointment for the post of Forest Guard in accordance with the provisions contained under the Rules framed in for the recruitment of Forest Guard known as Lower Subordinate Forest Service Rule 1980. Admittedly the petitioner has appeared in the written examination held on 14.10.1995 in pursuance of the notification dated 26.09.1995 for the recruitment of the Forest Guard and he has qualified at all the stages i.e. during selection process as well as physical efficiency test and as such there was no occasion not to consider the petitioner. In view of the facts stated aforesaid, the respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner as Forest Guard. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh representation in the light of the observations made above. If such a representation a filed, the respondents shall dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of filing of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of finally. There will be no order as to costs. 21.11.2003 (Rajesh Tandon, J.) ASWAL