SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash the appointment of respondents 4 to 7 as Forest Rangers in the quota of Ex. Servicemen with effect from the date his name was recommended with all consequential benefits.

(2.) According to the petitioner, in December, 1994 seven posts of Forest Rangers were advertised and all the posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Again in the year 1995 six posts of Forest Rangers were advertised out of which two posts were reserved for the candidates belonging to Ex. Servicemen category and four were reserved for the candidates belonging to Schedule Castes category. It was mentioned that if the Scheduled Castes candidates are not available, then the candidates belonging to general category or from Ex. Servicemen category will be considered. In pursuance of the advertisement in 1994, the official respondents appointed three candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes category, three candidates from general category and one candidate belonging to Ex. Servicemen category since seven Scheduled Castes candidates were not available and the four posts of Scheduled Castes which could not be filled in pursuance of the 1994 selection were carried forward alongwith two posts of Ex. Servicemen category and they were advertised in the year 1995 and the petitioner applied for the post of Forest Ranger against the quota reserved for Ex. Servicemen since his father was an Ex. Serviceman. But the respondents converted five posts belonging to the Ex. Servicemen quota to the general category and appointed three persons belonging to the General Category in pursuance of advertisement of 1994 and two posts were filled up from the waiting 'list' from General Category. Thus according to the petitioner, five posts belonging to Ex. Servicemen category have been filled up from the General Category candidates who were in the waiting list of the advertisement issued in the year 1994 ignoring the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was fully eligible for the post of Forest Ranger meant for Ex. Servicemen being a dependant of an Ex. Serviceman. The official respondents appointed three persons from the merit list belonging to Ex. Servicemen category even though two posts were advertised. They are respondents 4 and 5 and one Ved Parkash. Further according to the petitioner respondents 4 and 5 had applied in the category of dependents of Ex. Servicemen whereas Ved Parkash was himself an Ex. Serviceman. The petitioner also averred that respondents 4 and 5 were not eligible for appointment as Forest Rangers on the ground that respondent No. 4 does not have chest of 79 Cms. which was a pre-requisite for the post of Forest Ranger. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the appointment of respondents No. 4 and 5 on the ground that they do not belong to Ex. Servicemen category.

(3.) The petitioner also challenged the appointment of respondents 6 and 7 on the ground that they were appointed from the general category though the petitioner was available for appointment from the Ex. Servicemen category. He further alleged that there are 24 vacancies reserved for Ex. Servicemen in the direct quota and only 8 candidates belonging to the said category are holding the posts of Forest Rangers. Thus there is a short-fall of 16 Ex. Servicemen candidates and the 1st respondent on a request from the Principal Chief Conservator converted five posts of Forest Rangers from the Ex. Servicemen category to the General Category. The petitioner also alleged that though his name was recommended by the Subordinate Selection Board (for short the "ssb") for appointment as Forest Ranger in March 1996, his claims have been ignored by converting the posts belonging to Ex. Servicemen category to that of General Category and appointed respondents 6 and 7. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking to quash the appointment of respondents 4 to 7 and direct the official respondents to consider his case for appointment as Forest Ranger.