DINESH PURSHOTTAMBHAI JANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner came to the appointed as a daily wage labourer in GTS Sector No. 30 Nursery of the Forest and Environment Department. It is the case of the petitioner that in 1992, the Chief Conservator of Forest issued a circular that all those, who are working as daily wagers for more than five years with requisite qualifications should be taken as Class IV employees. It is the case of the petitioner that he made an application to the Deputy Forest Conservator in 1992. However, the petitioner did not get any response from the authorities. In the meanwhile, the petitioner along with other persons had filed a petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 2560 of 1994 seeking relief to the effect that the petitioners be granted benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Special Civil Application is not only admitted by this Court, but interim relief is also granted. By virtue of that interim relief the petitioner has got pay scale of Class IV employee. It is the case of the petitioner that the said petition is still pending for final disposal.

(2.) In the meantime, on 20.8.1998, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Forest and Environment Department issued a letter to the Chief Conservator of Forests regarding appointment of the Beat Guard, Accordingly, on 21.9.1999, the Government of Gujarat in Forest & Environment Deptt. has passed a resolution, whereby 342 laborers, who were working in the department came to be appointed as Beat Guards. As the petitioner was not considered and not appointed as Beat Guard, the present petition is filed.

(3.) An additional affidavit is filed by the petitioner dated 18.2.2000, stating that the petitioner has studied upto Standard X and that a copy of the School Leaving Certificate is also produced on record of this case. It is also pointed out by the petitioner in this additional affidavit that the petitioner fulfils the requirements of qualifications prescribed for the appointment of Beat Guards. However, for the reasons best known to the authorities, the petitioner is not considered for appointment as Beat Guard, though he has put in 15 years of service by that time. Taking into consideration the averments made in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, this court had issued rule on 23.2.2000 making it returnable on 23.3.2000. That is how the matter is heard today.