IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.3607/2010 Reserved on: 30.8.2010 Decided on:20.9. 2010 _____________________________________________ Surjeet Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Respondent-State has initiated the process for filling up the posts of Forest Guards in the Forest Department. The last date of receipt of application was 30.4.2010. Petitioner submitted application for considering his candidature for the post of Forest Guard in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. Physical efficiency test was held on 15.5.2010 and 16.5.2010. Petitioner participated in the physical efficiency test on 15.5.2010 and he was also 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes permitted to participate in high jump due to his injury on 16.5.2010. The written test was held on 6.6.2010. Final list was forwarded on 19.6.2010. Petitioner did not figure in the merit list as published by the respondent-Department. The interview of the candidates, who had passed the physical efficiency test and written test, was fixed on 30.6.2010. 2. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar has strenuously argued that the petitioner has faired reasonably well but due to biasness of respondent No.4, he could not be selected for the post of Forest Guard. He then contended that respondent No.4 was instrumental in ensuring that the petitioner does not qualify in the physical efficiency test as well as in the written test. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner was at Sr. No. 20 of the merit list of OBC and only nine candidates were to be considered against three posts of Forest Guards. According to him, petitioner had secured 45.25 marks and the marks obtained by candidate appearing at Sr. No.9 were 48. He also contended that there are ten candidates between the petitioner and the last candidate, who qualified for interview. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings as well as record carefully. 5. Respondent-State has issued detailed instructions the manner in which the posts of Forest Guards were to be filled up against the direct quota. According to Annexure R-III, the following Recruitment Committee was to be constituted in each Forest Circle: (i) Conservator of Forests – Chairman (II) 2 DFOs of the Circle as members. 6. The mode of recruitment prescribed was that the recruitment shall be open and shall be made at Forest Circle level. The name of the candidate should have been registered with any of the Employment Exchanges/Sub- Employment Exchanges in Himachal Pradesh. The candidates were to be screened with respect to age, educational qualifications and physical standards, as per rule 7. Thereafter the physical efficiency test was to be conducted in the prescribed manner. The physical efficiency test (PET) carried 25 marks. Thereafter the candidates, who qualify the PET were required to sit in the written test. The written test was conducted of those candidates who qualify the PET as per norms. The written test, carrying 60 marks, comprises of 80 objective type questions covering language, General Science of Matriculation level, General Awareness about Forests, Environment and Wild Life of Himachal Pradesh, General Knowledge, Reasoning and Aptitude etc. The duration of the written test was 65 minutes. The written test was to be conducted on the same day in all the Circles of the State. The question papers, each contained different sets of questions were required to be drawn up by the University for Horticulture and Forestry (hereinafter referred to as ‘UHF’ for brevity sake). A pack of question papers for each Circle, duly sealed, was to be delivered by the UHF representative, not below the rank of Assistant Professor, to the Chairman of the Recruitment Committee on the scheduled date of examination. The seal was to be opened in the presence of all the members of the Recruitment Committee. Their signatures were required to be taken on the envelope with the remarks that the seal was intact and opened in their presence. After the written test the answer sheets were to be sealed in an envelope duly signed by the Chairman and the Members of the Committee and handed over back to the representative of UHF under proper receipt. The UHF was required to evaluate the answer sheets and send the marks list under sealed cover to the concerned Conservator of Forests at the earliest. On completion of the test, the slip and the answer sheets were given matching dummy roll numbers and the slips removed and stored in safe custody of the Chairman till UHF returns the evaluated papers. On receipt of the marks of the written test from the UHF, the Recruitment Committee was required to decode the dummy roll numbers and appropriate marks entered on the Register as well as the Forms of the candidates. Thereafter after adding the total marks obtained in the physical efficiency test and in the written test, merit list was to be prepared category-wise, i.e. General, OBC, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes etc. in each Forest Circle for the purpose of calling the candidates for personality test and the candidates totaling three times the number of posts available category-wise in the concerned Forest Circle were to be called for interview in order of merit. A final merit list of successful candidates was to be prepared for each Forest Circle category-wise, i.e. General, OBC, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes etc. The merit list was to be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained in each category about, physical efficiency test, written test and personality test. This was the method provided for filling up the posts of Forest Guards. 7. The petitioner appeared in the physical efficiency test on 15.5.2010 and 16.5.2010. He has been awarded 14.5 marks out of 25 marks. He appeared in the written test on 6.6.2010. The total marks of the petitioner in physical efficiency test and written test are 45.25. There are 19 candidates, who had secured more marks than the petitioner. The candidates are called for the interview in the ratio of three to one. The candidate who is at Sr. No.9 and was called for interview has secured 48 marks. In order to ascertain whether the petitioner has been awarded marks correctly or not, the records were summoned. The answer sheet of the petitioner has been perused. Against question No.76 there is over writing. It appears that some alphabet was written and thereafter ‘A’ has been written by over writing. If full marks of question No.76 are awarded to the petitioner even then he does not fall in merit. It cannot be believed that respondent No.4 was instrumental in over writing, as argued by Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar. He is a Government functionary and does not have any grudge against the petitioner. The role of respondent No.4 and other members of the committee was supervisory. The question papers have been set up by the University of Horticulture and Forestry. These were evaluated by the experts and on the answer sheets dummy roll numbers were given. The physically efficiency test was conducted by the Physical Training Instructors and respondent No.4 and other members of the committee were assigned the supervisory role. The averments made by the petitioner that respondent No.4 was biased towards the petitioner have not been substantiated by bringing material on record except making bald assertion. The petitioner has tried to make out a case against respondent No.4 that he was opposing the plea of petitioner to permit him to complete high jump event on 16.5.2010. However, the fact of the matter is that petitioner has participated in 100 meters race. His further case is that he has received injury while running 100 meters race, but he had also participated in 800 meters race. He was permitted to participate in high jump event on 16.5.2010. Further case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 snatched the paper from the petitioner is not believable. Respondent No.4 is a responsible officer and he could not do so in the presence of other members of the committee. 8. In all, 4159 candidates applied for the posts of Forest Guards out of which 3951 were found eligible. However, 2407 candidates participated in the physical efficiency test and 772 candidates appeared in the written test. No candidate except the petitioner has levelled mala fide against respondent No.4. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar has also argued that respondent No.4 has not filed any separate reply. However, the fact of the matter is that respondent No.4 has also been arrayed as respondent No.3 in official capacity. The reply has been filed on behalf of all the respondents. 9. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has brought to the notice of the Court Annexure R-6 dated 10.7.2007 whereby the Special Secretary (Forest) had rejected the case of the petitioner for being considered in the OBC category when the earlier selection process was commenced for filling up the posts of Forest Guards in the year 2007. The petitioner had also participated in the year 2007 for the post of Forest Guard under general category. He stood at Sr. No. 38 in the general/open category. He claimed himself to be the member of the OBC category after the selection process was over. He made the representation and the same was rejected by the Special Secretary (Forest) on 5.9.2007. The petitioner has not made out any case that action of respondent No.4 was actuated with legal mala fides. He was one of the members of the Committee and was required to supervise the entire process. The petitioner ranks at Sr. No. 20 of the combined merit list prepared on the basis of physical efficiency test and written test. 19 candidates have secured more marks than the petitioner. The candidates were called for the interview in the ratio of three to one. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Interim order dated 29.6.2010 is vacated. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 20.9. 2010 *awasthi*