SHAKTI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In December 1982, Subordinate Service Selection Board, Haryana advertised 15 posts of Forest Rangers. 11 of the posts were reserved for members belonging to category of Scheduled Castes, Backward Class and Ex- Servicemen. Four posts were to be filled up purely on the basis of merit. However, it was stipulated that if suitable members belonging to the aforesaid three categories were not available, then 10 out of the 11 posts would be filled up from candidates belonging to general category. Petitioner, Shakti Singh, along with others applied for the aforesaid post. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 5. However, he was not appointed. The petitioner along with other unsuccessful candidates filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3239 of 1983. The said writ petition was dismissed. In the year 1986, one Sohan Lal (present respondent No. 4) approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 4761 of 1986. He was placed at serial No. 8 in the merit list. He prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to appoint him. The writ petition filed by Sohan Lal was allowed. Consequently, Sohan Lal was appointed. Similarly, some other candidates lower in merit than the present petitioner, including the one placed at serial No. 15 in the merit list, were given the letters of appointment. Petitioner, Shakti Singh, along with the other similarly situated persons, higher in merit, approached this Court yet again. They claimed that since persons lower in merit had been appointed, therefore, they were also entitled to appointment. The writ petition filed by the aforesaid writ petitioners was dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated October 31, 1990. It was held that the claim of the aforesaid writ petition was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. Aggrieved against the aforesaid decision, the writ petitioners filed a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 275 of 1991. The Letters Patent Bench vide judgment dated November 30, 1998 allowed the appeal and, consequently, the writ petition filed by the aforesaid petitioners was allowed. Directions were issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the aforesaid appellants for appointment as Forest Ranger on the basis of their position in the merit list. However, their claim for backwates was specifically given up by them by making a statement. A copy of the order passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the present petition.

(2.) As a consequence of the aforesaid directions, petitioner, Shakti Singh was issued appointment letter as Forest Ranger on October 1, 2001 (Annexure P-2). While issuing the aforesaid appointment letter, it was specifically stipulated that his seniority would be decided later on. Consequently, the petitioner, after joining the aforesaid post, made a representation to the competent authority for fixation of his seniority at the appropriate place. It was claimed by him that since his place in the merit list at the time of selection was at serial No. 5, therefore, he was entitled to seniority from the day his junior had been appointed. A legal notice was also issued by the petitioner. In the aforesaid legal notice, it was claimed that one Raj Kumar Jangra (present respondent No. 3) was shown at serial No. 6 in the aforesaid merit list and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to a place over and above aforesaid Raj Kumar Jangra. However, respondents issued a gradation list of Range Forest Officers as on 1.1.2002 (Annexure P-6). In the aforesaid gradation list, the petitioner has been shown at serial No. 84 and his date of appointment has been shown as 1.10.2001. Persons, who were lower in merit, in the selection list, namely Sohan Lal, Bijender Rana, Satbir Singh Kadiyan, Harish Kumar Walia and Sadhu Singh have been shown at serial No. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 31 respectively. The petitioner has impugned his placement in the seniority list through the present petition and has, accordingly, approached this Court.

(3.) It has been specifically averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that he was placed at Serial No. 5 in the merit list, whereas the private respondents were shown lower in merit. The details given by the petitioner showing his merit position and the merit placement of the private respondents is as under :