COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) 391/2002 Manohar Chandra Pande & Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal through Forest Secretary, Dehradun & Others ……Respondents Sri M.S. Pal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri D.N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 30th April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioners in accordance with the selection list issued by the Selection Committee on 15.10.1985, which is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and give the other financial benefits as well as promotion accordingly. 2. Petitioners were initially appointed as daily wagers in the Pithoragarh Forest Division. For filling up the regular vacancies of Forest Guards, a written examination was conducted on 29.9.1985, which was followed by interview. Petitioners participated in the said examination. On the basis of the results of the written examination and interview, a waiting list comprising of 14 candidates was prepared, wherein the petitioner no. 1, 2 and 3 were placed at serial number 5, 7 and 8 respectively. All candidates, whose name appeared in the 2 said list, were given appointment except the petitioners. Petitioners filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21750 of 1989 before the Allahabad High Court, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 9.9.1997 and the respondents were directed to pass appropriate order appointing the petitioners against the next available vacancy in the post of Forest Guard as the respondents illegally omitted the appointment of the petitioners. With regard to seniority, it was provided that the petitioners shall make a representation before the appropriate authority, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. 3. Thereafter petitioners were appointed on the post of Forest Guard vide order dated 1.3.1999, which is contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. After their appointment, petitioners made representation regarding their seniority, whereupon the respondents directed that the seniority of the petitioners shall be considered from the date of their appointment on the post of Forest Guard. 4. The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in his judgment and order dated 9.9.1997 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21750 of 1989 preferred by the petitioners has recorded his finding, which is reproduced as under: “The allegations made by the petitioners in several paragraphs as also in the representations were that all the candidates except three petitioners, whose names appeared in the said list, have been given appointment. This has not been 3 denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. About the representations of the petitioners it has only been stated that those representations were not made within time. In the aforesaid factual background, I find that the respondents committed illegality in giving appointment to the candidates whose names appeared below the names of the petitioners in the said waiting list. In such case the question of expiry of the life of waiting list does not arise, as the respondents gave appointments to several candidates, the petitioners’ right to get appointment is also apparent. The petitioners have not made all the candidates, whose names appeared after the petitioners, as parties in the present proceedings. As the petitioners were shown against serial nos. 5, 7 and 8 in the waiting list, there is no reason why the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been made parties in the present proceeding as respondents when their names appeared against serial nos. 11, 12 and 13 in the said waiting list. In normal course the candidates against serial nos. 6, 9 and 10 ought to have been added as respondents as they were coming immediately after the petitioners. As other relevant candidates have not been added as respondents, I do not consider the claim of the petitioners for cancellation of the 4 appointment of any selected candidates. But, in any event, as the respondents omitted the appointment of the petitioners illegally, they are directed to pass appropriate order appointing the petitioners against the next available vacancy in the posts of Forest Guard and to pay salary to them in accordance with law. With regard to seniority the petitioners will be entitled to make appropriate representations before the authorities after their appointment whereupon the appropriate authority will consider the question of seniority in accordance with law.” 5. Undisputedly, petitioners were appointed on the post of Forest Guard vide order dated 1.3.1999 in compliance of the aforementioned judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court. But on the representation of the petitioners regarding their seniority, it has been directed vide order dated 17.1.2001, Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit, that the seniority of the petitioners shall be considered from the date of their appointment on the post of Forest Guard. On perusal, I find that the order dated 17.1.2001 is unspeaking one and no reason has been assigned by the concerned authority in support of his decision. In para 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the selection of the petitioners was done under U.P. Awar Adhinasth Van Sewa Niyamawali, 1980 and as per the instructions contained in Rule 21 of the said Niyamawali, the petitioners were put in the seniority list with effect from the date of their joining. But on 5 perusal of Rule 21 of the said Niyamawali, I find that Rule 21 itself stipulates that persons who have been directly appointed, their relative seniority shall be the same which has been determined at the time of selection. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, I direct the respondents to reconsider the matter of seniority of the petitioners in the light of the observations made above and determine the same as early as practicable preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 30.4.2008 Prabodh