ZALA PRAVINSIGH LALSIGH Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed by the persons who have been serving as daily wagers in the Social Forestry Division of Sabarkantha Forest Division since many years. The petitioners in Special Civil Applications No.4377 of 2000, 4378 of 2000 and 4379 of 2000 have been serving from 1.1.1993, 1.9.1989 and 6.10.1991 respectively. The petitioners were paid daily wage of Rs.69.30 per day.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the State Govt. took a policy decision as to make recruitment to the posts of Beat Guards from daily wagers, like the present petitioners of the Forest Department. Therefore, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Gujarat State issued a circular dated 28.9.1998, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'A' to the petition. The circular was sent to all the Conservators of Forest of all the circles and divisions. Pursuant to the aforesaid policy of the State Government dated 28.9.1998, the Conservator of Forest, Gandhinagar directed the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gandhinagar as well as Sabarkantha (South) and Sabarkantha (North) to prepare a list of daily wagers who had completed 240 days on or before 31.3.1997. A list of 37 daily wagers was prepared which is at Annexure 'C' to each of these petitions. The name of the petitioners in Special Civil Applications No.4377 of 2000, 4378 of 2000 and 4379 of 2000 are at serial nos.29, 21 and 25 respectively. Though not specifically mentioned in these petitions as to who are the juniors of the petitioners appointed as Beat Guards, it is stated that most of the daily workers whose names are shown in the said list at Annexure 'C' have been given appointment as Beat Guard. In Special Civil Application No.3852 of 2000 it is placed on record that persons at serial no.30 and 33 are given appointment, whose appointment orders are also placed on record of that petition, which aspect is taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the present petitions.

(3.) The petitioners who were waiting for appointment orders were surprised to learn that out of the list of 37 persons, a copy of which is at Annexure 'C', 14 persons were appointed by the department, none of whom are the petitioners. The petitioners were excluded for no fault of the petitioners, for the reasons not known, rather say for extraneous consideration. Thus, the petitioners herein are alone left out.