BHUPENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the action of the respondents in appointing the petitioner as a Clerk on compassionate grounds and in rejecting his request for appointment as a Deputy Forest Ranger illegal and arbitrary? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On June 11, 1980, the petitioner's father who was working as a Forest Guard in the State of Haryana died. The petitioner was less than 7 years of age at that time. In the year 1994, the petitioner passed his B.A. examination and applied to the Govt, for appointment as a Deputy Forest Ranger on compassionate grounds. His application was recommended by the Forest Department to the office of the Chief Secretary. On October 31, 1994, a post of Clerk in the office of the Advocate General, Haryana was offered to the petitioner. He joined the post on December 19,1994. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on October 18,1995 with a prayer that he be appointed as a Deputy Forest Ranger. The request having not been accepted, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The petitioner alleges that a number of other persons have been given appointments to various posts in different services. He submits that appointments have been made even to the Haryana Civil Services which is classified as a Class-I service. The petitioner alleges that the action of the respondents in not appointing him to the post of Deputy Forest Ranger for which he is duly qualified is arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He consequently, prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint him to the post of Deputy Forest Ranger with effect from December 19,1994, with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. It has been pointed out that the petitioner's father Mr. Attar Singh was working as a Forest Guard. On his death, the petitioner was offered the post of a Clerk which he had duly accepted. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to now claim the post of the Deputy Forest Ranger. The respondents place reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, 1994 3 JT 525. According to the respondents, the petitioner has no vested right for appointment to the post of a Deputy Forest Ranger. Accordingly it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed with costs.