IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPs No.1427 & 1428 of 2002 and 536 of 2003 Decided on : December 18, 2008 CWP No.1427/2002 State of H.P. and another …Petitioners. Versus Pawan Kumar and another …Respondents. CWP No.1428/2002 State of H.P. and another …Petitioners. Versus Prem Chand and another …Respondents. CWP No.536/2003 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners Versus Ram Chand and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. in all the writ petitions. For the Respondents : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for respondent No.1, and none for respondent No.2, in CWP No.536/2003. None in CWPs No.1427 & 1428 of 2002. Per Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) These three writ petitions, by the State, are directed against two different orders of the State Administrative Tribunal. The orders are dated 21st November, 2002, Annexure P-1 (in CWP No.536 of 2003), passed in Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Original Application No.1159 of 1996, and common order dated 21st June, 2001, Annexure P-1 (in CWPs No.1427 & 1428 of 2002), passed in Original Application No.108 of 1997 and Original Application (D) No.117 of 1997. 2. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. Respondent Ram Chand, in CWP No.536 of 2003, who filed Original Application No.1159 of 1996, and respondents Pawan Kumar and Prem Chand, in CWPs No.1427 & 1428 of 2002, who filed Original Application No.108 of 1997 and Original Application(D) No.117 of 1997, had been working as Forest Guards in the Forest Department, in the year 1978, when 75 vacancies of Deputy Rangers were sought to be filled by direct recruitment. Forest Guards, working in the Department, were also eligible to seek appointment against direct quota posts, provided they fulfilled the qualification prescribed for the direct candidates, which was Matriculation with Science, and the prescribed minimum and maximum age limit which were 18 years and 27 years, respectively. All the three respondents, namely Ram Chand, Pawan Kumar and Prem Chand, applied for appointment as direct recruits against the aforesaid 75 vacancies. They were interviewed. A select list was prepared. Names of respondents Pawan Kumar, Prem Chand and Ram Chand appeared at Serial Nos.1, 3 and 19, respectively, in the select list. One Hukam Chand, who was impleaded as respondent, in all the three Original Applications and is also impleaded as respondent in all the three present writ petitions, also applied for direct recruitment against the available …3… vacancies. His name though figured at Serial No.14 of the Select List, yet the Conservator of Forests, Dharamshala, wrote to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that he having not passed the matriculation examination with Science subjects, was not eligible and also that he was overage. 3. No appointment, on the basis of the aforesaid select list, was made, immediately, probably for the reason that Hukam Chand made some representation. However, vide order No.369/95, dated 17th June, 1995, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests appointed Hukam Chand as Deputy Ranger, w.e.f. 28th February, 1979, on the basis of the aforesaid select list, after relaxing the maximum prescribed age limit and also relaxing the condition of educational qualification. Respondents Pawan Kumar, Prem Chand and Ram Chand were, however, not appointed. 4. Respondents Pawan Kumar and Prem Chand filed Original Applications, seeking their appointment, on the ground that they having been placed above Hukam Chand in the select list could not have been ignored. State took the plea that these two respondents were not eligible to seek direct recruitment, as they had not been in service for five years in the year 1978, when they were interviewed. Respondent Ram Chand also challenged the appointment of Hukam Chand and sought his own appointment, on the ground that Hukam Chand was not eligible, he having been overage and also he being not matriculate with Science subjects. His prayer was opposed by the State, on the ground that …4… conditions of age and qualification had been relaxed in the case of Hukam Chand. 5. Learned Tribunal allowed all the three Original Applications. In the case of Pawan Kumar and Prem Chand, it was held that the plea taken by the State that they, having not put in five years service, were not eligible, was contrary to the Rules, pertaining to the direct recruitment of Deputy Rangers, inasmuch as for direct candidates condition of five years service was not there and that this condition was only in the case of appointment of Deputy Rangers by promotion from amongst Forest Guards. Ram Chand’s Original Application was allowed with the reasoning that Hukam Chand could not have been offered appointment by relaxing the conditions regarding age and qualification, as that affected the right of Ram Chand (a duly qualified candidate) to be appointed as Deputy Ranger. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel representing the respondents. 7. We see no reason to interfere with the orders of the learned Tribunal. Admittedly, respondents Pawan Kumar, Prem Chand and Ram Chand, as also respondent Hukam Chand, had applied for appointment against the posts of Deputy Rangers reserved for direct recruitment. Therefore, eligibility criteria were supposed to be the same as prescribed for direct recruitment in the Rules. The criteria are that the candidate should be between age-group of 18 years and 27 years and should be matriculate with Science. Respondents …5… Pawan Kumar and Prem Chand fulfilled the conditions of both the age and the qualification and, admittedly, they had been placed above Hukam Chand, in the merit list. So, they could not have been denied appointment as Deputy Rangers. 8. Respondent Ram Chand was also eligible. He was matriculate with Chemistry and Physics. Therefore, he could not have been denied appointment as Deputy Ranger to accommodate Hukam Chand, because of the latter being both overage and not possessing the educational qualification. We do not see any error, leave alone any illegality, in the orders of the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. December 18, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.