IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Misc. Application for Special Leave to Appeal No. 8605 of 2011 IN Special Appeal No. 186 of 2011 Ramesh Chandra Joshi S/o Shri K.N. Joshi, R/o Village - Ramak, Post Office-Dholigaon, District-Champawat, presently R/o M.E.S. Camp, Champawat, Uttarakhand. ..………. Applicant/appellant Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Forest Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 3. Conservator of Forest, North Kumaun Circle, Uttarakhand, Almora. 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat Division, Champawat, District-Champawat. ……...…. Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.5. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V.K. Bist, Judge Date of Decision: 23rd August, 2011 Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Sri Ganesh Chandra Joshi S/o late Sri Chintamani Joshi, resident of Village- Latoli, Post Office Champawat, District- Champawat is added as respondent No.5 to the appeal. 2. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate is appearing on behalf of the said respondent. 3. The appellant was not a party to the writ petition and, accordingly, he has filed an application to seek leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order passed on the writ petition. In the writ petition, it was contended by the petitioner that there 2 was no just reason not to accept his candidature against the advertisement. The learned Judge noted that the Selection Committee rejected the candidature of the writ petitioner only on the ground that the writ petitioner was not working in the department. The learned Judge considered the advertisement as well as the corrigendum thereto. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that for the appointment advertised a seasonal worker may respond who is working continuously in the Forest Department since 9th April, 1996 or prior thereto. The advertisement, therefore, made it clear that the seasonal worker, who is to respond to the said advertisement, should work until the date of the advertisement since 9th April, 1996 or prior thereto. In the corrigendum, it was mentioned that the posts advertised may be responded by all those seasonal workers who have worked at least for three seasons as seasonal workers. The learned Judge noticed that the Selection Committee, while rejecting the candidature of the writ petition, did not take notice of the corrigendum as there was no dispute that the petitioner was continuously working since 19th February, 1985 and continued to work upto 11th August, 2003. In the counter affidavit, it was not contended that writ petitioner did not work for at least three seasons as seasonal worker. On the writ, an interim order was passed and thereby one post was kept vacant for the petitioner. When the Court found that the petitioner was eligible in terms of the corrigendum, and that, people, who obtained lesser mark than the petitioner in the selection process have been appointed, the Court issued a direction to appoint the petitioner. By reason of such direction, no interest of the appellant herein has been affected in any manner whatsoever. The appellant, therefore, cannot be aggrieved by the order he seeks leave to appeal against. 4. The appellant is, however, contending that the writ petitioner was not a seasonal worker but he was a mere daily wager. It was contended that difference between a seasonal worker and 3 daily wager is that whereas the seasonal worker draws his remuneration on voucher, a daily wager draws his remuneration on muster-roll. The question is not whether under muster-roll or under voucher the remuneration is drawn by the person, the question is the status of the person. The status of the petitioner, as that of a seasonal worker having served at least for three seasons, was not disputed in the writ petition by the employer. Such dispute cannot be put forward by a third party. 5. We, accordingly, refuse to grant leave to the appellant to prefer an appeal. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 23.08.2011 23.08.2011 P. Singh