RAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Chowkidar on daily wages basis since 6.10.1995 with the respondent department. The Conservator of Forest, Surguja Circle, i.e. the respondent No. 3, by memo dated 30.3.1999 (Annexure-P/1) directed all the Divisional Forest Officers, Surguja Circle, to send the confidential reports of Farrash, Daftari, Process Server, Peon, Chowkidar, Barrier Guard for the period from 1994 to 1998 and further their physical measurement viz. height/chest etc. Accordingly, the Divisional Forest Officer (Social Forestry) Forest Division Ambikapur, by communication dated 8.4.1999 (Annexure-R/1) sent the name of Premsai - Daftari, Ramesh Kumar Singh Yadav - Farrash, Bechan Ram - Process Server and Om Prakash Soni - Process Server, but not the name of the petitioner.

(2.) Having considered the confidential reports and physical fitness, 19 persons were ordered for absorption by order dated 31.12.1999 (Annexure-P/2) by the respondent No. 3 except the petitioner. The petitioner was not considered. Thereafter, by letter dated 3.1.2000 (Annexure-P/3) the name of the petitioner was also sent by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Ambikapur, recommending his name for absorption, however, the petitioner could not be absorbed. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation on 7.6.2004 (Annexure-P/4) to the respondent No. 3. A reminder was also sent by the Divisional Forest Officer, Koria on 18.6.2004 (Annexure-P/5) stating that the case of the petitioner was referred earlier on 3.1.2000. Vide letter dated 31.7.2004 (Annexure-P/6), the case of the petitioner was rejected for absorption in view of the memo No. /203, dated 7.9.2002 of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur. Thus, this petition.

(3.) The petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order dated 31.7.2004 (Annexure-P/6) whereby his case for absorption was rejected and further a direction to consider his case as on 29.6.1999 for absorption/merger on the post of Forest Guard (untrained) as his name was not sent earlier and he was not absorbed by order dated 31.12.1999 (Annexure-P/2). The name of the petitioner was sent subsequently on 3.1.2000 (Annexure-P/3), which was rejected in the light of the circular dated 7.9.2002 denying the petitioner equal opportunity as provided under the constitutional provisions. Thus, the order dated 31.7.2004 (Annexure-P/6) rejecting the case of the petitioner be quashed and the respondent authorities be directed to consider his case on that date for absorption and merger.