RAJENDRA PRASAD RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter contained in Memo No. 3470 dated 11.08.2006 (Annexure-6) written by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Jharkhand, Ranchi addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Ranchi informing him that a decision has been taken by the Government to abolish the provision of granting promotion to the Forest Guards to the post of Foresters, who have done their training from Guards Training School in first class with honours after 16.07.1990. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Forest Guard to the post of Forester in the light of provisions contained in Rule 3.21 (b) (ii) of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Forest Rules.

(2.) The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Forest Guard on 29.08.2000 and after joining the said post, he has rendered meritorious services, having put in more than 17 years of service. The service records of the petitioners were without any blemish. Rule 3.21 (b) (ii) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Forest Rules, envisages that a Forest Guard may be promoted to the post of Forester, if he stood first with Honours in Guards' Training School and have put in at least 5 years of satisfactory service and for this purpose, 25 per cent of total posts of Forester are earmarked and kept reserved for the post of Forester. From time to time, the Government has taken decisions for promotion of one or the other Forest Guards to Forester in the light of the provisions of the aforesaid Rule. In light of the said provisions, Government issued letter dated 29.11.2002 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which, inter alia, stipulates that the seniority of those promoted persons to the post of Forester shall be counted from the date of their actual appointment inasmuch as their services were through direct recruitment. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was sent for training to the Guards Training School, Mahilong, Ranchi and he successfully completed the training of Forest Guard from July, 2009 to December, 2009. After successful training, the petitioner submitted representation to the competent authorities, requesting for consideration of his promotion from the post of Forest Guard to the post of Forester, but the case of the petitioner is not considered till date. It would not be out of place to mention that one Mr. Bharat Pandey, who completed his training from July, 2004 to December, 2004 with first class with honors was promoted from the post of Forest Guard to the post of Forester vide Office Order dated 24.04.2006. But to the utter surprise, a decision has been taken vide letter dated 11.08.2006 that the provisions relating to promotion from the post of Forest Guard to the post of Forester on or after 16.07.1990 has been abolished. Thereafter, similarly situated persons, who had completed their training from Guards Training School, Ranchi in first with honors moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3695 of 2007 for quashing the Memo No. 139 dated 06.02.2009 and Memo No. 3470 dated 11.08.2006 and to consider their case for promotion from the post of Forest Guards to Foresters in pursuance to Rule 3.21 (b) (ii) Bihar (now Jharkhand) Forest Rules and the same was allowed vide order dated 08.02.2018. As the case of the petitioner is not considered for promotion and also the impugned order has been quashed and set aside in another writ petition, he has been constrained to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Mrs. Ritu Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner submits that already issue regarding quashment of the said impugned order fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3695 of 2007 and this Court vide order dated 08.02.2018 quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 11.08.2006. Learned counsel further argues that in view of the quashment of the impugned order, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the said post in the light of the provisions as contained in Rule 3.21 (b) (ii) of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Forest Rules.