MITLESH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 2/9/2013 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent Respondent No. 3.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager in the forest department and after serving for many years, on 10/9/2008 he was temporarily appointed as peon and after a period of six months, he was regularized on the post of peon. The qualification of the petitioner is 10th standard passed and some peons equally qualified as petitioner were posted as Forest Guards. Therefore, to consider his case for appointment to the post of forest guard, the petitioner made a representation before respondent No. 3 stating that his appointment on the post of peon was made on the basis of records available with the forest department whereas he has qualified 10th standard examination and this fact was communicated to the respondent No. 3 in the year 2001. Upon the said representation the forest S.D.O. made a note that he is satisfied with the submissions made by the petitioner and the petitioner is eligible for the appointment as Forest Guard, but he was appointed as peon and forwarded the same to respondent No. 3 for suitable action. The petitioner continued to make representations on various occasions before the respondent authorities but on 2/9/2013 respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that the educational qualification of the petitioner is 10th standard passed, whereas the educational qualification required for Forest Guard is 10+2 pass. The two daily wagers namely, Manjur Alam and Gyaneshwar Ram Yadav were initially appointed as peons, on 1/6/2009 their post was changed to Forest Guard, whereas they were only 8th standard passed. As per the seniority list, more than 50% of Forest Guards are either 10th standard passed or some lower class passed. This act of the respondent authorities is violative of Article 14 because equally placed forest servants are being treated unequally for posting as forest guards. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition for the following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order by which respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of the petitioner to change his post from peon to Forest Guard is arbitrary and against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He next submits that the respondent No. 3 without appreciating the fact that many peons who are equally qualified and some peons even less qualified than petitioner have been posted as forest guards, rejected the claim of the petitioner for change of post. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Others, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 497.