THAKUR DASS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thakur Dass Petitioner joined service in the Department of Forests on 4th August, 1958 as a Resin Watcher in Hamirpur Forest Division, After re -organisation of the State of Punjab, his services were allocated to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, and since then he was serving in Himachal Pradesh as a Resin Watcher. On 1st January, 1968, the petitioner was transferred to Una Forest Division. It is alleged by the petitioner that Relu Ram, respondent No. 4, was appointed as a Forest Guard on 9th March, 1971 (Annexure B) in Una Forest Division. The petitioner alleges that he was senior to respondent No. 4 and had a better claim for being appointed as a Forest Guard. The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the order, dated 9th March, 1971 regarding the appointment of respondent No. 4 as a Forest Guard, filed an appeal to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, but the same was rejected. The petitioner alleges that he was transferred to Hamirpur on 19th May, 1971. The petitioner had challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4 as a Forest Guard on the grounds that he was senior to respondent No. 4 and that for appointment of a Forest Guard the criteria of seniority -cum -merit amongst the Resin Watchers is to be kept in view. The next attack of the petitioner is that even if the post was to be filled up by open selection then some type of intimation/advertisement/circular or notification should have been issued so that the petitioner could also become one of the applicants for filling such post of a Forest Guard. On these allegations the petitioner has prayed that the appointment/promotion of respondent No. 4 be quashed and that he be promoted as a Forest Guard or atleast his case be considered for being appointed as a Forest Guard.

(2.) A return to the writ petition was filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and it was alleged that the post of a Forest Guard is not filled by promotion and the criteria of seniority -cum merit amongst Resin Watchers is not taken into consideration for filling this post. It is further alleged that the field of choice for filling the post of a Forest Guard is not confined to Resin Watchers only and if any Resin Watcher applies for this post then his name can also be considered for the post when the same is notified to the Employment Exchange. J acts return it was further alleged that respondent No. 4 was appointed as a ese iuard vide order No. 141/1971, dated 9 -3 -1971, and that, in fact, there Vfo open competition for the selection of Forest Guards in the year 1967. k? rther alleged that three vacant posts of Forest Guards were notified to the lvnc iyment Exchanges on 28th July, 1967, and about twenty -seven candidates apOT &?d for interview, of these posts on 8th August, 1967. A panel of selected at the time was prepared, and in his panel the name of Relu Ram, (respondent datas mentioned at serial No. 3. It is further alleged that one Piar Chand *ceP Scheduled Caste and departmentally experienced candidate was given fence and the other two candidates, Gurdev Singh and Hari Singh, were ? ied from the panel which had been prepared at the time of selection. In these circumstances, Relu Ram (respondent No. 4) could not be selected at that time and was allowed to work as a Resin Watcher only. Thereafter Hari Singh one of the selected candidate resigned from service and in his place Relu Ram was appointed vide order, dated 9th March, 1971 (Annexure B). In view of fHe 5 falls it was alleged that as Relu Ram was already in the panel of selected candidates of the year 1967, therefore, there was no question of notifying any vacancy as the vacancy had only been caused by the resignation of Hari Singh. It was further alleged that the appointment of Relu Ram is not a case of promotion.

(3.) A rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner was filed to the return and the allegations of the writ petition were re -asserted.