Dominic Vanlalzawna and Others vs R.L. Aldingliana and Others

R.S. Mongia, Actg. C.J.

The Appellants, three in number, were working as Foresters in the Forest Department of the State of Mizoram. All of them have passed the Rangers Course but they have not passed the Pre-University (Science) Examination. As per Mizoram Forest Department (Group-B non-gazetted post) Recruitment Rules, 1992 for direct recruitment to the post of ranger requisite educational qualifications are P.U. (Science) or equivalent with training in Rangers Course. According to the recruitment rules, the posts of Ranger are to be filled up 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. The promotion to the rank of Ranger is from the following four categories:

(1) Deputy Ranger who has passed forester course and has put in not less than 6 yrs. regular service in the grade, OR

(ii) Surveyor with not less than 7 yrs. regular service in the grade and should also have practical experience in Forest Works OR

(iii) Untrained Deputy Ranger with not less than 10 yrs. regular service in the grade OR

(iv) Subordinate Forest Staff who has passed HSLC & Ranger Course of training with not less than 5 yrs. regular service in the grade of Forester I or equivalent.

The Appellants belong to the 4th category.

There were 9 vacant posts of Forest ranger under the Environment and Forest Department. As per the roster maintained by the Department out of 9 posts, 7 posts were filled up by the direct recruitment whereas the remaining 2 posts were to be filled up by promotion. Two posts were filled up by promotion and we are not concerned with that. When the D.P.C. sat for consideration for the candidates for direct recruitment it was found that only 4(four) candidates were having the requisite qualifications as per the rules. The question arose before the D.P.C. as Jo how the rest of the 3 (three) posts against which no candidate having requisite qualifications was available were to be filled up. It was thought that those posts should be filled up from amongst those candidates who had at least one of the qualifications, i.e. passing of the ranger''s Course and should be recommended to the government that in case of those candidates academic qualification should be relaxed. The D.P.C. recommended 3(three) candidates, i.e. the Appellants who had passed the ranger''s Course to be absorbed/appointed as ranger by recommending to the Government for relaxation of their education qualification. The Government agreed to relax the educational qualification for appointment to the post of Ranger in favour of the Appellants against direct recruit quota. This was done by the government on 5th June, 1998. After the qualifications were relaxed, the Appellants were offered the post of Ranger by the order dated 10th July, 1998, a copy of which had been appended as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. This order reads as under.

On recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 29.4.1998 and as approved by the Government of Mizoram, Environment & Forests Department vide their letter No. A. 11018/7/92-FST dt. 16.6.98 the following Foresters who had passed Ranger Course of training during 1993-95 are hereby appointed to the post of Forest ranger in the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-60-2600-EB-2900/- p.m. They are posted to the place indicated against their names.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Appellants joined as Ranger. This order was challenged through writ petition by one Shirr R. Laldingliana, who was working as Surveyor in the Forest Department of Mizoram. It was, interalia, contended that the posts of Forest rangers which remain unfilled in the direct recruit quota should have been filled from the categories mentioned in the Rules (reproduced above) for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger. The Respondents in the writ petition (now Appellants) who were in the 4th category could not be promoted in preference to the categories above the 4th category. The post of Surveyor is in the second category to which the writ Petitioner belonged was to be given preference over the 4th category. It was alleged that the writ Petitioner was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger and the Respondents (now Appellants) could not steal a march over him. The learned Single Judge found favour with the arguments of the writ Petitioner and held that since between the 4(four) categories mentioned above there is word "or" it necessarily means that the official Respondents should consider the candidates in order of preference, i.e. the first category should be considered first and if no person is available in the category, them the question of considering the candidates of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th category in that order would arise.

We have perused the judgment and heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The question which arises for our consideration is whether the three posts in question were filled up by direct recruitment or by promotion. Admittedly out of the 7 posts meant for direct recruit quota, 3 posts remained unfilled because eligible candidates were not available. Under the circumstances, it was thought by the D.P.C. to fill up those posts by direct recruitment from amongst the candidates who may become eligible on relaxation of educational qualifications. It was not that the posts were being filled up by promotion by converting the direct recruit quota to promotional quota. It is mentioned in the proceedings of the D.P.C. that there is no other candidate available who had passed the ranger''s Course whereas the Appellants had passed that course and, as observed above, their educational qualifications were recommended to be relaxed by the government. The appointment letter of the Appellants, which has been quoted above, also goes to show that the Appellants were appointed as ranger and not that they were promoted to that post. Even the relaxation order recites that the relaxation was being given for the Appellants'' appointment against direct recruit quota.

In view of what has been observed above, the rule of promotion on which the learned Single Judge relied upon regarding promotion would not come into play. The rule for direct recruit would come into play and the writ Petitioner (now Respondent) without having the qualification of passing the ranger''s Course could not have been considered for direct recruitment. Consequently, we find nothing wrong in the appointment of the Appellants as Forest ranger by direct recruitment. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are unable to agree with the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge.

Consequently, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. Writ petition would stand dismissed.