LAWS(GJH)-2010-5-199

TAVIVAD ISHWARBHAI MANGALBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On May 10, 2010
TAVIVAD ISHWARBHAI MANGALBHAI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioners were working as daily wagers in the Forest Range Office of Bariya Sub-Division since 1988 and they worked continuously as such for several years. On 17.09.1997, respondent no. 1 addressed a communication to respondent no. 3 instructing him to fill up the post of Beat Guards by absorbing the daily wagers. Pursuant thereto, respondent no. 3 issued necessary directions to various Divisional Range Forest Officers vide communication dated 18.09.1998 to fill up the post of Beat Guards, on certain conditions. Thereafter, on 17.10.1998 the call letters were sent to the petitioners and other eligible candidates. Pursuant thereto, interview was held on 27.10.1998 and on completion of the interview, Select list was prepared by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that though instructions have been given by the respondents to all Sub-Divisional Offices to select and appoint the Beat Guards from amongst the daily wagers and though the select list is prepared the same is not operated by the respondents. The petitioners have also made representation to the concerned authority to operate the select list forthwith. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears from the record that as per the merit cum seniority list the appointment orders were issued for the post of Beat-Guard in view of the permission granted by the Forest & Environment Department. It also appears that majority of the petitioners have been absorbed and appointed to the post of Beat-Guard. Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that no illegality or infirmity is committed by the respondent. Hence, the petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.