AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hasnain Massodi, J.—The petition on consideration is admitted to hearing and on consensus taken up for disposal at its threshold.
Chief Conservator of Forests (CAMPA), respondent No. 3 herein, on 25.4.2011 issued an advertisement notice notifying that J&K Forest
Department was in need of qualified manpower for preparation of Working Plans and Demarcation of Forests. The persons having diploma in
Forestry from any recognized Rangers College (DDR) were asked to appear in person before the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kashmir and
Jammu regions with their Biodata for assessment of their aptitude for the Working Plan preparation for respective regions. The aspirants were also
given the option to appear with their bio-data in the office of Chief Conservator of Forests (CAMP A). The engagement as per the advertisement
notice was required for 'specialized technical job'. It was further notified that the engagement would be need-based and in the project mode. There
was also a word of caution for all those interested in the job as they were informed that the Working Plan preparation and Demarcation duties
would require extensive touring in remote areas and in-depth knowledge of the subject.
The petitioners claim to have to their credit Bachelor's and Master's degree in Forestry and are aggrieved that though well equipped to man the
positions advertised, they have been excluded from the zone of consideration. The advertisement notice is impugned on the grounds that it does not
indicate the number of posts, the particulars of the posts to be filled up so that all eligible for the advertised posts take an informed decision
regarding participation in the selection process. The notice is labelled as cryptic, lacking in essential details and to have been issued in flagrant
violation of the rules. It is alleged that the advertisement notice has been intentionally left cryptic and ambiguous because of extraneous
considerations and issued in malicious exercise of executive power. It is pleaded that the impugned advertisement notice infringes petitioners' right
to consideration for available advertised posts.
The writ petition is opposed on the grounds that the advertisement notice gives all required details necessary to convey the eligibility criteria for
and job requirements of the advertised positions and is not lacking in any material details. It is insisted that laying clown eligibility criteria falls
exclusively within the domain of the employer/department and that in the present case the power has been exercised in a fair, transparent and
objective manner.
Heard and considered.
It is pertinent to point out that the advertisement notice is not intended to fill up any posts available and lying vacant in the J&K Forest
Department. The Forest Department proposes to embark upon a programme to prepare Working Plans and demarcate the forests. The
department proposes to associate qualified men with the proposed project. The persons picked up for their association with the project have not
to get automatically associated with the project. It is expressly laid down in the advertisement notice that their association with the project would
be on need basis and shall depend upon the timeframe and area of operation of the project. Respondent No. 3 has made it clear that Working
Plan preparation and demarcation duties would require extensive touring in remote areas and in-depth knowledge of the subject and that the
proposed engagement would entail a specialized technical job. Respondent No. 3 against the aforesaid backdrop has laid down diploma in
Forestry from a recognized Rangers College like DDR as the qualification for the advertised positions.
It is a fact of common knowledge that the Rangers College does not merely impart education in Forestry as the name of the course indicates but
the candidates enrolled in the Diploma Course in a Rangers College have to undergo vigorous practical training that includes extensive touring of
the forests throughout the country. The candidates are imparted training to make them well equipped for the post of Forest Rangers and discharge
the duties of protection, maintenance and preservation of a forest range that they may have to look after once they get appointed against such post.
In other words the Diploma in Forestry from a Rangers college is not purely an academic course but a specialized technical course. The Bachelor's
and Master's degree in Forestry on the other hand is an academic course without having any component of practical training. It is just like a
Bachelor's or Master's degree in Education as against a B. Ed or M. Ed. Course from a Teachers Training College. Whereas a Bachelor's or
Master's programme in Education is purely academic in nature, the B.Ed. and the M.Ed. Involve practical training as important components of the
course. In the circumstances the petitioners cannot complain that they though having a Bachelor's and/or Master's degree in Forestry have been
illegally excluded from the zone of consideration and exposed to any hostile discrimination. The candidates having diploma in Forestry from a
Rangers College like DDR and the candidates with Bachelor's and Master's Degree in Forestry from different colleges or universities belong to
two different and distinct classes and the petitioners cannot be heard saying that their right to equality granted under Article 14 Constitution of India
has been violated.
This apart, an employer, say a government department or an organization, has complete freedom to lay down eligibility criteria for a post and a
candidate cannot find fault with it unless the eligibility criteria so fixed has no nexus at all with the post. In the present case as already pointed out
the eligibility criterion laid down, as is evident from the contents of the advertisement notice impugned in the petition, has a direct and reasonable
nexus with the job requirement of the post. Reliance placed by the petitioners on law laid down in Dr. Mehta Rupaben Ishwarbhai and others v.
State of Gujarat and others, 1977 (I) SLR 535; Makhan Lal Mattoo v. Union of India and others, 1982 SLJ 333; G.N. Mullick & Anr. v. State,
1997 SLJ 65; H.S. Sahni and others v. State, 1999 SLJ 105: 2010 (8) JKJ HC 525 (FB); Bashir Ahmad Allayee and others v. State, 2005 (1)
JKJ HC 505; Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Satinder Kumar and another, 1995 Supp (4) SCC; State of Haryana and others v. Indira
Kumari (2003) 10 SCC 150; State of Mysore Vs. S.R. Jayaram, is misplaced as the facts of the reported cases are markedly different from the
facts of the present case. This apart in G.N. Mullick and another v. State (supra) it has been observed:
It is no more res-integra that it is the employer's domain to lay down and prescribe a qualification for appointment to a post. A candidate for the
post would have to sink or swim with this qualification. It is different matter if the prescribed qualification is unreasonable, irrational or incapable of
being acquired. Even in such cases, it would be presumed to be valid till it is struck down.
The aforesaid reported cases thus instead of extending support to the petitioners' case, belie the stand taken by the petitioners.
The advertisement notice in question gives sufficient details about the nature of the job, the activities that are to form an integral component of
the job and the eligibility criteria for the advertised positions. It also makes it clear that what is advertised is not a post but to get trained manpower
equipped with necessary training and expertise for a project and that anyone found competent to be associated with the project shall have to be so
associated only on need basis. The advertisement notice is thus sufficient in all details and cannot be labeled as cryptic, vague or ambiguous as is
sought to be projected by the petitioners.
For the reasons discussed, there is no merit in the petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim direction, if any, is vacated.