SRIKANT PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had been originally serving on the post of Forest Guard and he received an order dated 1-6-1987 (Annexure-3 which is the same as (Annexure-I of the counter-affidavit) stating that on the basis of his having passed the training course in Van Rakshi Training School, Mahilong, with Honours, he had been promoted to the post of Forester in the prescribed scale of pay. This order of promotion was however withdrawn by an order dated 31-5-1988 (Annexure-6) as a result of which he was again placed on the post of Forest Guard. This order Annexure-6 mentions that the basis on which the order of promotion was issued, namely that he has passed training Course with Honours was incorrect and that in fact he had not passed with Honours and on this account the promotion was being recalled. Annexure-6 is the impugned order and the prayer in this application is to quash the same and place the petitioner again on the post of Forester.

(2.) THE petitioner's entire case is based on the claim that he had passed Training Course with Honours and in proof of the same Annexure-1 was given to him. Annexure-1 is a photo copy of the certificate which is said to have been given to him. THE Learned State Counsel has on the basis of the facts stated the counter-affidavits and the documents attached with them submitted that the certificate Annexure-1 is not a genuine document and the petitioner had not in fact passed the Training Course with Honours. THE various documents filed with the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State, to which the petitioner has no satisfactory reply nor has been able to meet the facts stated therein, leave no room for doubt that Annexure-1 is not valid and genuine and does not stated the correct fact and that the petitioner had not in fact passed the Traing Course with Honours and therefore, the very basis for his promotion from Forest Guard to Forester is lacking.

(3.) THERE is no substance in the petitioner' contention that the critera of 75% or more marks for "Sa Samman" (Honours) has been fixed after he had passed out. As pointed out above, Rule 14 in Appendix VI of the Forest Manual lays down this critera and this is in existence since 1940. It is not correct to say, as has been urged by the petitioner, that this critera was laid down for the first time by Annexure H which is letter No. 3811 dated 6-7-1987 issued from the office of the Conservator in Chief Forest, Bihar to all officers of the Forest Department. This letter merely re-iterates and remainds that only candidates who have secured 75% or more will be treated as having passed with honours (Sa Samman). It merely re-states what has been laid don since 1940 under Rule 14. Hencs the petitioner's condition that the critera of 75% marks is not applicable to him is untenable. It was asked that it Rule 14, or say even Annexure H, is not applicable to the petitioner there on the basis of which rule or circular" Sa Samman" could be awarded when he had secured 71.75% marks only, the petitioner's had no answer. THEREfore, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner has not passed with honours (Sa Samman) in the Training Course and hence there was no legal and valid basis for his promotion to the post of Forester.