IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 5384 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.T.DINESH SHANKAR, DEPUTY RANGER, MUKKALI FOREST STATION, ATTAPPADY RANGE, MUKKALI P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.5384 OF 2010(W) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Deputy Ranger aspiring for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger in the 25% quota ear marked for promotion As per Rule 10B of the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service Rules, Officers selected in the FTR category, have to successfully complete training in Forest Training College before appointment as Ranger. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in Ext.P1 ranked list of Deputy Rangers prepared by the PSC for deputation for training he was included at Sl. No.22. According to the petitioner, in view of Ext.P4 judgment, Department is bound to ensure that 21 posts are available for promotion. According to the petitioner one of the persons, who was deputed for training, Sri. Shanavas was disqualified and had to discontinue training, which is evident from Ext.P6. It is submitted that in view of the undertaking as recorded in Ext.P4 judgment, the respondents are bound to depute a substitute in the place of Shanavas. It is submitted that petitioner being next in the ranked list, is the person who should be WPC.No. 5384/2010 :2 : deputed. A representation in this behalf made by the petitioner did not evoke any result. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 3. According to the Learned Government Pleader, it is true that 25% in the category of Forest Ranger are available to be filled up from among the Deputy Rangers who have successfully completed training at Forest Training Colleges. It is stated that deputation for training has to be based on Ext.P1 ranked list which was published by the PSC on 25.2.2006. According to the Government Pleader, the validity of the list is for a period of 3 months from the date of publication or for one month from the last date on which the last batch commenced training, which ever is later. It is stated that applying the above principle, the list was valid till 24.5.2006 and expired thereafter. 4. It is stated that from the above ranked list, though 21 persons, were deputed for training, one of the persons Sri. Shanavas, who also had commenced training on 3.1.2008, was disqualified thereafter. It is contended that as this had happened after the expiry of the list, no one can be sponsored for training from among those included in Ext.P1 rank list. Therefore, learned WPC.No. 5384/2010 :3 : Government Pleader contends that the claim raised by the petitioner, at this distance of time that he should be deputed for training as a substitute of Sri. Shanavas is stale and unsustainable. 5. Answering the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Sri. Shanavas himself was advised for training after the expiry of the list, Government Pleader submits that the said statement is factually incorrect and that Sri. Shanavas was also deputed for training prior to the expiry of the list. 6. Entitlement to be deputed for training to the Forest Training College, is dependent upon the inclusion of a candidate in the ranked list prepared by the PSC. Admittedly, petitioner was also included in the list and facts show that the ranked list expired on 24.5.2006. Therefore, even if a person who was deputed from the ranked list discontinued after the expiry of the list, no substitute can be deputed for training from the expired list. Once that position is accepted, evidently, the contention of the Government Pleader that the claim of the petitioner is a stale one has to be accepted and the prayer sought by the petitioner for deputation from the expired ranked list has to be rejected. WPC.No. 5384/2010 :4 : 7. Counsel contended that there are 21 posts available in the quota for promotion and that to maintain that quota, it is necessary to depute one person. Though, in principle, the contention raised by the Counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted, still having regard to the fact that the claim now raised by the petitioner for deputation for training is from an expired ranked list, I am not prepared to direct the authorities to depute the petitioner for training as claimed in the writ petition. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/