IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.5903 /2008 Reserved on: 1.7.2009 Decided on:21.7. 2009 Sant Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sankhayan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard on 1.11.1965. The post of Forest Guard is in feeder category for the post of Deputy Ranger. He was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1976. He was placed at Sr. No. 40 in the select list. He was not promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger. In subsequent Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 1979, the petitioner was considered and he was placed at Sr. No. 26 in the select list. He was, however, promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger in the year 1997. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Mr. K.C. Sankhayan, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client was fully eligible and qualified to be considered for the post of Deputy Ranger in the year 1976. He was placed at Sr. No. 40 in the select list on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. However, one Sh. Pritam Chand, who was placed at Sr. No. 37 in the seniority list and was not possessing the essential qualification i.e. matriculation, was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger and the petitioner was left out. The representation made by his client was rejected without assigning any reasons on 26.8.1999. He lastly contended that one Sh. Hukam Singh, Forest Guard also made a representation on 12.12.1994 seeking promotion with effect from 1979 as Deputy Ranger. However, the same was accepted by the competent authority i.e. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 17.6.1995 and Sh. Hukam Singh was appointed as Deputy Ranger with effect from 28.2.1979 notionally and on temporary basis. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected after taking into consideration all the pros and cons of the matter. He then contended that the petitioner could not be permitted to rake up the issue in the year 1995 since the Departmental Promotion Committee met in the year 1976. He lastly contended that Sh. Pritam Chand was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger on the basis of information supplied by the field agencies. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The process for filling up the posts of Deputy Rangers by way of promotion was initiated by the respondent-Department in the year 1976. The field agencies had supplied the information of eligible Forest Guards, who were less than 35 years of age vide communication dated 1.9.1976 and 10.9.1976. The process was initiated vide Annexures R-1 and R-2 dated 10.9.1976 and 21.9.1976, respectively. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 16.10.1976. The recommendations are Annexure R-3. The name of the petitioner is at Sr. No.40 in the select list and name of Sh. Pritam Chand is at Sr. No. 37. Sh. Pritam Chand has been shown to be in possession of Higher Secondary Part-1 qualification and against the name of the petitioner, the qualification has been shown to be Higher Secondary. Sh. Pritam Chand was promoted vide Annexure R-4 on 18.7.1977. His name is at Sr. No.8. The petitioner came to know about the qualification of Sh. Pritam Chand in the year 1995. He verified the equivalence of the qualification from the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. He was apprised vide Annexure A-7 that the person who has passed High Secondary (Core) Examination was not to be considered as matriculate. He made a detailed representation to the respondents on 1.1.1996. The same was rejected by the competent authority on 26.8.1998. It will be apt at this stage to take note of the subsequent developments, which had taken place after 1976. The Departmental Promotion Committee also met in the year 1979 to consider the cases of the eligible persons. The petitioner’s case was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee again and his name figured at Sr. No. 26 in the category of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe vide Annexure R-7. However, he was not promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger on 1.7.1997. A specific averment has been made by the petitioner in para No.5 of the petition that respondent No.1 had invited detailed comments from the Conservator of Forests regarding the qualification of Sh. Pritam Chand. The Conservator of Forests has informed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that the qualification of Sh. Pritam Chand who was promoted at Sr. No. 37 was shown as Higher Secondary Part-I in the select list while he was Higher Secondary (Core). Once this information has been supplied to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, remedial measures were required to be taken by him and grievance of the petitioner was required to be redressed. The only explanation given by the respondents for not considering the case of the petitioner even after supplying the information to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is that the selection of Sh. Pritam Chand was on the basis of the information supplied by the field agencies when the list of eligible candidates was called for vide Annexures R-5 and R-6. A bare perusal of Annexure R-5 reveals that the qualification of Sh. Pritam Chand has been shown as Higher Secondary (Core). The qualification of the petitioner is Higher Secondary. Similarly, in Annexure R-6, the qualification of Sh. Pritam Chand has been shown as Higher Secondary (Core) and the qualification of the petitioner has been shown as Higher Secondary. In other words, the respondents have considered the candidature of Sh. Pritam Chand who was not in possession of the essential qualification i.e. matriculation. It is evident from Annexure A-7 that it was necessary for the candidates who have passed the Higher Secondary (Core) examination to pass the subjects of English and Mathematics and only thereafter they could be treated at par with regular matriculates. Sh Pritam Chand has passed only Higher Secondary (Core) examination and this qualification could not be treated as matriculation qualification. The name of the petitioner was at Sr. No.40 in the select list. It is evident from Annexure A-6 dated 18.7.1977 that Sh. Pritam Chand, who was at Sr. No. 37 in the select list has been promoted and his name was at Sr. No.8 and one Sh. Sandhya Dass, who was at Sr. No. 39 stood promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger. The next point belonged to the petitioner i.e. Sr. No. 40. Since Sh. Pritam Chand was not eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger, Sh. Sant Ram i.e. the petitioner was to be offered promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger. It is intriguing to note that the petitioner’s name was also recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee as per Annexures A-9 and R-7. However, he was not promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected without assigning any reasons. It was necessary for the respondent No.1 to assign at least some reasons why the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The other ground urged by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger from the anterior date i.e. 1977 when eligible candidates were considered is that the petitioner has slept over his rights. The petitioner came to know about the non-eligibility of Pritam Chand in the year 1995. He made a representation on 21.1.1996, which was rejected by the competent authority on 26.6.1998. The present petition has been filed in the year 1999. In a similar case one Sh. Hukam Singh, who was also wrongly over looked for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger in the year 1979 made representation on 12.12.1994 to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. His representation was accepted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 17.6.1995 and he was appointed/promoted as Deputy Ranger with effect from 28.2.1979. He had appeared in the selection process in the year 1978-1979. In case the representation made by Sh. Hukam Singh has been considered and accepted in the year 1995, on the same analogy the representation made by the petitioner ought to have been accepted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. The employer cannot be permitted to adopt different yardsticks for the similarly situate persons. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, it is clear that Pritam Chand was not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger in the year 1976 and has been wrongly considered and promoted. The petitioner was at Sr. No. 40 in the select list and after the omission of Pritam Chand, he was to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger with effect from 18.7.1977. He has been wrongly over looked for promotion in the year 1979 as well. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected without assigning any reason. The petitioner was required to be given the same treatment, which has been given to Hukam Singh vide Annexure AR-2 dated 17.6.1995 by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests when he accepted the representation made by Hukam Singh and he was promoted with effect from 28.2.1979. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger with effect from the date Sh. Pritam Chand was promoted i.e. 18.7.1977 notionally and on temporary basis. It is made clear that this period from 18.7.1977 shall be counted for the purpose of seniority for all intents and purposes except the arrears of salary. No costs. 21.7.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*