IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 3114/2008 (OA No. 611/96) Decided on: 30.3.2009 Som Parkash Sharma ..…Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, vice counsel. For respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. For respondent No. 3 : None. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The matter originally filed before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was admitted on 6.5.1996. Even before the Tribunal, respondent No. 3 did not cause appearance. By virtue of the provision of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008 (No. 14 of 2008) the case stood transferred to this Court and actual date notice of hearing of the present matter was issued to respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘private respondent’). Inspite of pass over, he has not caused appearance. Hence the matter is heard in his absence. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Private respondent was appointed as Forest Guard on 1st of October 1965. He was sponsored for Forest Guard training course , which he undertook w.e.f. 1.11.1966 up to 31.3.1967. The course was undertaken at the Research and Training division, Pinjore, managed by the State of Punjab. With the reorganization of the states, the services of the private respondent Shri Devi Singh stood transferred to the Forest Department, State of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 1.11.1966. Upon successful completion of his course the private respondent represented for benefits of accelerated promotion on the basis of his performance in the training course. The benefits were claimed under rule 7 of the Recruitment and Promotion to the H.P. forest Department Subordinate (executive Section) Services (hereinafter referred to as ‘rules’). The relevant portion of the rules are extracted as under:- “7. Methods of recruitment to posts of Deputy Rangers. Appointment to posts of Deputy Rangers shall be made as follows:- a) persons who possess the higher or lower standard qualification of the college, or b) person who :- i) have passed the Matriculation Examination of a recognized University, and ii) have agreed to undertake after the expiry of one Year’s work in the Forest Department the course of training at the school in accordance with the regulations in Appendix “c” Appendix “c” to the said rule provides for as under:- 3 “ One of the following two kinds of certificates will be awarded to the students completing the course according to the results obtained:- (I) Passed certificate- Granted to students securing not less than 50% marks in each subjects. (2) Honours Certificate: By qualifying student securing 70% marks in all subjects and 75% marks in the aggregate will be declared as passed with honours. Students with honours certificate will qualify for accelerated promotion in the departments.” The State examined the case of the private respondent and vide order dated 12th of March 1983, (Annexure- A3) rejected the same for the reasons that since he had qualified the training course from the Punjab Forest School, hence he could not derive the benefits under the rules framed by the respondent-state. However, on the representation of the private respondent, the said order was revised and in terms of order dated 28th of March 1995, (Annexure A-1/1) the private respondent was held entitled for accelerated promotion to the rank of Forester/Deputy Ranger, from the date when he qualified the forest guard Training course with honours notionally and on temporary basis with immediate effect. The consequential order dated 28.4.1995 (Annexure A-1/2) was passed by the Conservator of Forest and the benefit of seniority for the purposes of pay fixation were given from 1.10.1995. The Principal chief Conservator of forest promoted the private respondent as Forest Ranger in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w.e.f. 19.10.1992 vide order dated 16th of February 1996, Annexure A-2. 4 The petitioner herein has assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that the private respondent did not fulfil the eligibility criteria in as much as he had not cleared the training course with 70% marks in all the subjects as provided for under rule 7 and Appendix ‘c’ of the rules. This fact is stated in para- 63 of the petition. The State has not specifically denied and disputed the said fact. The private respondent has not filed any return. Be that as it may be from the certificate annexed by the petitioner (Annxure-A3) it is apparent that even though the private respondent had secured more than 75% of marks in aggregate and stood 2nd in joint merit and first amongst the trainees from Himachal Pradesh but, however, he had not secured 70% marks in all the subjects. Even though, certificate Annexure A-3 mentions that he cleared the course with honours but on the face of it appears to be incorrect. He has not secured 70% marks in Viva, Management Home Test and Silviculture Home Test. For the aforesaid reasons, the private respondent could not have been accorded benefits of accelerated promotion as provided for under the Rules. He was ineligible. Accordingly, Annexures A-1/1 dated 28.3.1995, A-1/2 dated 27.4.1995 and A-2 dated 16.2.1996 are quashed. Petition is allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 30, 2009 (vs)