IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 226 (SS) OF 2006 Narendra Pal Singh, S/o Late Sri Karan Singh, Assistant W8ild Life Warden, Rajaji National Park, Motchur Range, P.O. Haripur Kalan, District Dehradun. ..................Petitioner. Versus 1. Director / Forest Conservator, Rajaji National Park, District Dehradun. 2. Chief Wild Life Warden, Rajaji National Park, District Dehradun. ..........Respondents. Sri Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Dated: 27.02.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Forester under the Dying in Harness Rules of 1974 for which he is qualified. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the father of the petitioner Mr. Karan Singh was appointed as Wild Life Guard in District Pauri in the year, 1966. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner was promoted in the year 2000 on the post of Forester/Assistant Wild Life Warden. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 10th March, 2001 while he was working with the respondents as Forester. After the death of his father, the entire responsibility of his family came on the shoulders of the petitioner and he applied on 24th March 2001 for appointment on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules, but the same was not considered. A recommendation was made (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) to the effect that fourteen posts are lying vacant. In the letter dated 7th April, 2001, it was further clarified that the father of the petitioner namely Sri Karan Singh was appointed as Forester and the petitioner has applied for the same and 14 posts are lying vacant. The petitioner has also referred another order passed by the forest minister, who has certified that the petitioner’s father was a Forester and other persons have been given appointment on the post of Forester and the petitioner also deserves for the same post. The recommendation to that effect is quoted below:- “mRrjkapy ou j{kd la/k dk i= fnukad 30&6&2001 {LkayXu ewy esa} dk voyksdu djsaA la/k ds i= ls Lor% Li’V gS fd foHkkx ds vUrZxr e`r vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ es foHkkxh; vf/kdkfj;ksa +)kjk euekuh dh tk jgh gSA mnkgj.k Lo:Ik Lo0 Jh ohjsUnz Hkkjrh] ou {ks=kf/kdkjh ds vkfJr Jh eukst dks Hkh ou njksxk cuk;k x;k gSA ;gka rd dh jsat vnZyh ds vkfJr Jh yfyr eksgu cFkZoky dks Hkh ou njksxk cuk;k x;k] ysfdu Lo0 Jh dj.k flag]l0Ok0t0iz0 ds vkfJr Jh ujsUnziky flag dks ou njksxk ds LFkku ij ou j{kd cuk;k tk jgk gSaA laKku eas yk;k x;k gS fd Jh ujsUnz flag ou njksxk ds fy, iw.kZ vgZrk j[krk gSA vr% Jh ujsUnz flag dks Hkh vU; e`rd vkfJrksa dh Hkkafr ou njksxk ds in ij fu;qDr djus dk d’V djsaA” The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of several representations made by the petitioner, he has not been appointed on the post of Forester but has been appointed on the post of Forest Guard vide order dated 27th March, 2001. The petitioner has made a representation on 25th July, 2001 and again on 14th February, 2006, but the same has not been considered as yet. In view of the aforesaid recommendation as well as other appointments on the post of Forester, the respondent no. 2 is directed to dispose of the representations of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the presentation of the certified copy of the order by passing an appropriate order. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 27.02.2006 Rathour