HABEEB HASSAN P. C. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P6, P12 and P14 and seeking for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to issue appropriate orders declaring the post of Field Officer of Kerala Forest Development Corporation as equivalent to Range Officer (Manager) in Kerala Forest Department.

(2.) The petitioners are working as Field Officers under the 2nd respondent Corporation. Previously the post of Field Officer was known as Field Assistant and later it was re-designated as Field Officer, as per the revised Service Rules of the 2nd respondent. As per Ext.P5 Government Order the 1st respondent fixed the rank of the employees of the 2nd respondent corresponding to that of the officials of the Forest Department. As per Ext. P5, the post of Field Assistant (now Field Officer) is equivalent to the post of Deputy Ranger in Forest Department. Later, the Government as per Ext.P6 order approved the revised Service Rules of the 2nd respondent Corporation. However, in Ext.P6 the post of Field Officer was made equivalent to the post of Forester. The specific case of the petitioner is that method of appointment to the post of Field Officer as per Ext.P6 is by direct recruitment and appointment by transfer of officers in other categories and the qualification required is a Science Degree of a recognized university and physical qualifications as prescribed in the Rules. Though a proposal was mooted for equating the post of Field Officer at par with the post of Deputy Ranger, the same was not done due to the influence of some service organization in the Forest Department. The petitioner would contend that the qualification required for appointment to the post of Field Officer is Degree in Science of a recognized University or equivalent whereas the qualification required for the post of Forester is a pass in plus two and to substantiate the said contention the petitioner relies on Exts.P7 and P8 selection notifications for both the posts. Aggrieved by the action in treating the post of Field Officer at par with Sec. Forest Officer instead of Range Forest Officer, the petitioners preferred Ext.P9 representation and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment in W.P.(C) No.26096 of 2020, the 1st respondent considered the claim of the petitioners and rejected the same by Ext.P12. Though a review petition was filed, the same was also rejected by Ext.P14 order. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent Government contending that the contention raised by the petitioners based on Ext.P5 notification is not correct and Ext.P5 notification was issued at a time when there was no service rules in Kerala Forest Development Corporation. It is admitted that in Ext.P5 the post of Field Assistant was equated to the post of Deputy Ranger in the Forest department, but the same was for the purpose of giving the powers of Forest Officer to Field Staff of Kerala Forest Development Corporation for implementing Kerala Forest Act in areas managed by them, which includes protection of forest by booking cases and prosecuting before magistrates and issuing timber passes as per timber transit rules. During the inception period of the Corporation, the activities of the Corporation were run by the Government by appointing the officers from the Forest Department. Later the Service Rules of the Corporation came into force in 1986, which was revised in the year 2005. As per the Service Rules, for the purpose of fixing scale of pay, posts were again declared to be equivalent to scale of pay of corresponding posts in Forest Department. In the revised Service Rule several posts were re-designed, several new posts were added, and several changes in the number of posts and designations were also made. One major change was splitting up of post of Field Assistant in to the post of Assistant Manager and Field Officer. Post of Assistant Manager/Field Officer was made as a promotion post of Field Assistant. Thus newly added Field Officer is equated to Sec. Forest Officer for salary purpose. Eligibility criteria for the post are based on the nature of job and technical knowledge required to carry out technical duties like plantation management etc. and Ext.P5 has nothing to do with the qualification and other service conditions of the Kerala Forest Development Corporation. It is further contended that the post of Field Officer is an entry post in the technical category. The qualification and scale of pay of the said post is fixed taking into consideration the nature of job and other relevant aspects. The post of Assistant Manager which is equated to the post of Deputy Ranger for pay scale is different in all aspects from the Field Officer. It is also contended that the salary or powers are not fixed in accordance with basic qualification required for the post and technical jobs may be having low initial salary and may not have powers attached to the post, but may require a specific subject expertise and managerial posts of highly demanding job nature will have more salary and powers but that may not have any relation to qualification required for the said post. On the basis of the same it is contended that the contentions raised in the writ petition cannot be accepted and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.