HARISH GUPTA & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Forty three beneficiaries of Govt Order No. 441-FST of 2000 dated 23-10-2000, who came to be appointed as Asstt Directors in the Forest Protection force on adhoc basis for a period of six months or till the rules of Forest Protection force are enforced whichever is earlier, have preferred these appeals under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Their appointments came to be quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Not only the appointees but the State had also preferred appeals. As issue involved in all these appeals is common. Thereafter, it is proposed to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment.

(2.) The case of the respondents/writ petitioners was that a brochure was issued by the J&K Forest Department. There was a proposal to constitute a Forest Protection Force. As per the respondents/ writ-petitioners they were waiting for further advertisement which would have enabled the eligible person to take part-in the process of selection for joining the Forest Protection Force. Petitioners however, submitted that instead of considering the claims of eligible persons State of Jammu and Kashmir issued Govt Order No. 441-FST of 2000 dated 23-10-2000. After giving some background the operative part of the order was to the effect that 43 persons have been appointed as Asstt Directors in the Forest Protection Force in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 on adhoc basis for a period of six months or till the rules of Forest Protection Force can enforced. Whichever is earlier. The earlier Govt order bearing No.74-F issued on 24-04-2000 stood relaxed. This order dated 24-04-2000 was placed on the record of the petition as Annexure-D. This govt. order was challenged inter-alia on the ground that these appointments were made without issuing any public notice. As to by what process the appointing authority was able to receive 58 applications was called in question. It was further stated that the applications were obtained by pick and choose method without making any public candidates who applied for the post. It was urged that not only the appointment were made without issuing any public advertisement. The respondent-State also did not take into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Parkash Gupta Vs. State of J&K and others, AIR 2000 SC. It was urged that even though there are no statutory rules in existence for governing the constitution of service, the fact remains that so far as Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution are concerned they are required to be followed notwithstanding the fact that there do or do not exist service rules. It was urged that earlier Govt had taken a decision to ban further recruitments and notwithstanding this ban the State of Jammu & Kashmir directed to make these appointments. It was also urged that so far as J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1956 are concerned the appointments can be made for a period of 89 days and that too when there is a case of grave emergency. A person who is also appointed under Rule 14 of the Rules gets no right to continue with the post. In a nutshell, the challenge to the appointments was made inter-alia on the grounds

(3.) The stand taken by the State be noticed. In the objections which were ordered to be treated as counter, it was stated that the State of J&K has the power to make adhoc appointments and that these appointments do not confer any preferential right on the person so appointed. It was also stated that a notice was published in a highly circulated newspaper dated 30-6-1997, where-under all those candidates who had appeared in their B.Sc Forestry Course and who had undergone Forester Training Course for two years were called upon to register their name in the office of Chief Conservator of Forest and conservator of Forests. It was in response to this notice, the candidates had submitted their applications. It is stated that as some writ-petitions were pending in this Court, and that in writ petition No. 379/97 this court has directed the Public Service Commission that the result be not declared and no-doubt that interim direction stood vacated, but considering the urgency of the matter 58 applications which were received in pursuance to the advertisement, referred to above, the screening committee was constituted and it was in these circumstance 43 candidates came to be appointed. It is submitted that the proposal was submitted to the Cabinet and it was the State Cabinet, which gave its seal of approval to these appointments. With a view to support the urgency, it is submitted that the need to make the appointments was felt so that the illicit felling of green trees is curbed. It is also stated that the recruitment rules of Forest Protection Force are at final stage and that the adhoc appointments have been made in accordance with law and that the adhoc appointments would give no extra benefit of appointment letters having been issued in their favour. Thus, the stand of the petitioners that the appointments have not been made after issuing a public notice and the claims of all eligible person have not been considered sought to be met in the manner indicated above. This stand of the State, as noticed by the learned Single Judge be also taken note of. It was duly noticed, the decision of the Cabinet taken on 30.06.2000 where by approval for the appointment of 58 candidates on adhoc basis in supercession of Govt Order No. 74-F dated 24-04-2000 was taken note of. It was the plea of the State that such appointments were necessitated to protect the forests of the State was also noticed by the learned Single Judge.