RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper -book.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on the post of Forester on 23.6.1993 on compassionate grounds. His father had died on 2.1.1992, after having served the department for 27 years. At the time of his death, the father of the petitioner was serving as Deputy Forest Ranger. Not satisfied with being appointed on the post of Forester, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents for being appointed on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger. This representation was submitted by the petitioner on 10.10.2000. Since the representation of the petitioner had not been decided, he filed C.W.P. No. 2461 of 2001. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 27.2.2001 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner. The respondents thereafter accepted the representation of the petitioner and appointed him on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger on 9.11.2001. The appointment of the petitioner was upto 29.2.2004 with stipulation that there is possibility of continuity in future. He was also put on probation for one year. This period of probation could be extended upto three years. The aforesaid appointment of the petitioner was, however, ordered to be cancelled on 23.8.2002. The petitioner again filed C.W.P. No. 14940 of 2002 complaining that the order of cancellation has been passed, without observing rules of natural justice. On 6.7.2004, this Court quashed the order dated 23.8.2002 with the observation that the respondents are at liberty to pass fresh orders, after observing rules of natural justice. Thereafter, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 3.9.2004. In this show cause notice, it has been clearly mentioned that the representation of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger was illegally accepted by the Conservator of Forests. He was, therefore, directed to show cause as to why the appointment on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have now passed the order dated 7/8.2.2005 directing the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Forest Ranger.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. : [1994]3SCR893 , the Supreme Court has clearly held as follows: -