Keshav Ram vs State of H.P. and Another

Kuldip Singh, J.—The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of seniority list Annexure A-2 dated 6.8.1999 of Forest Guards of Shimla Circle as it stood on 1.1.1999 with prayer that Respondents may be directed to re-do the seniority list and to assign the Petitioner due seniority and place him at serial No. 66 immediately after Raghuvir Singh and above Surat Ram. The Petitioner has also prayed that Respondents may be directed to count the service rendered by the Petitioner as Enumerator in the Respondent department from April, 1979 to 21st December, 1984 for the purpose of seniority and other pecuniary benefits. It has also been prayed that Respondents may be directed to consider the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger from the date the persons junior to him have been promoted with all consequential benefits like seniority and arrears of salary etc.

The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed Enumerator in the Respondent department on daily wage basis in Kotgarh Working Plan from April, 1979 to July, 1981; from August, 1981 to October, 1981 in Chail Working Division and thereafter from November, 1981 to June, 1983 in Solan Working Plan.

The Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard in Respondent department on 21.12.1984, he belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The Petitioner passed out successfully the regular course of Forest Guard''s Training at the Himachal Pradesh Forest Training School, Chail during the II session 1990-91 by securing first division in a class of 34 candidates. The Respondent-State has framed the Himachal Pradesh Forest Training School Rules, 1992 (for short 1992 ''Rules), which have come into force w.e.f. 18.7.1992. As per Rule 3.5 the candidates, who are granted honour certificates will be promoted during the period of 5 years by granting them accelerated promotion which was to be made applicable after carrying out amendment in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

The Petitioner was not granted accelerated promotion on the basis of performance in the regular course of forest guard''s training as per Rule 3.5. of 1992 Rules. The Petitioner was also legitimately expecting that his services rendered in the Respondent department w.e.f. 1979 would be counted towards seniority but to the contrary, the Petitioner has been deprived of the same. In the seniority list of Forest Guards as it stood on 1.1.1999 circulated vide letter dated 6.8.1999 the Petitioner has been shown at serial No. 155 instead of serial No. 66 immediately below Raghuvir Singh and above Surat Ram.

It has been stated that one Amar Singh, Forest Guard in Wild Life Range, Kufri had filed O.A. No. 1757 of 1995 in the erstwhile Tribunal seeking benefit of rules for purpose of accelerated promotion. The O.A. No. 1757 of 1995 was allowed on 29.4.1996 and a direction was given to Respondent-State to make requisite amendment in the existing rules in accordance with law and then consider the Petitioner for accelerated promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger within three months thereafter. It has been stated that the case of the Petitioner is similar to the case of Amar Singh in O.A. No. 1757 of 1995. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the petition for the reliefs noticed above.

The petition has been contested by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing reply. It has been stated that Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard by the Divisional Forest Officer, Shimla Working Plan Division vide office order No. 21 dated 17.1.1985 w.e.f. 21.12.1984 and accordingly his seniority was decided correctly.

The Government vide notification dated 5.5.2001 has deled the provision contained in 1992 Rules under Clause 3.5 regarding accelerated promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger. There is no provision for giving accelerated promotion to a Forest Guard to the post of Deputy Ranger in the Himachal Pradesh Deputy Forest Rangers and Forest Guards Class-III (Executive Section) Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 (for short 1978 ''Rules'').

The seniority is strictly maintained from the date from which a candidate is selected/appointed as such Petitioner has no concern for the past service rendered as a daily waged worker. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 have denied the remaining claim of the Petitioner and have prayed for dismissal of the petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is the case of the Petitioner that as per Rule 3.5 of 1992 Rules, he is entitled to accelerated promotion as Deputy Ranger. In 1978 rules no benefit of acquiring special merit under 1992 rules for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger has been provided. The Petitioner has contended that in O.A. No. 1757 of 1995 the erstwhile Tribunal had given a positive direction to the Respondents to make requisite amendment in the existing rules in accordance with law and then consider the case of the Petitioner in O.A. No. 1757 of 1995 for accelerated promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not pointed out whether any amendment in the 1978 Rules was carried out for accelerated promotion in terms of order dated 29.4.1996 of Tribunal in O.A. No. 1757 of 1995.

The notification dated 5.5.2001 issued by the F.C.-cum-Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is as follows:

In exercise of the power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order to delete the following words from the para 3.5 of H.P. Forest Training School Rules, 1992 framed vide notification No. Fts.I(B) 12-4/80 dated 28.7.92:

The trainees who pass the training course with Honour''s certificate will be entitled to out of turn accelerated promotion within a period of 5 years of their service subject to the amendment of the existing Recruitment & Promotion Rules.

The Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Deputy Ranger are 1978 Rules and unless some provision for accelerated promotion on the basis of acquiring special merit under 1992 rules is provided in 1978 Rules, the Respondents cannot be directed to give benefit of special merit acquired by the Petitioner in terms of Rule 3.5 of 1992 rules. Thus, seen from any angle, the Petitioner is not entitled to accelerated promotion under 1978 rules in view of his acquiring special merit under 1992 Rules.

The Petitioner has sought a direction to the Respondents to place him at serial No. 66 in the seniority list of Forest Guards Shimla Circle as it stood on 1.1.1999 and circulated on 6.8.1999. The Petitioner has sought his placement immediately below Raghuvir Singh and above Surat Ram. The existing position of the Petitioner as per seniority list Annexure A-2 is at serial No. 155, he is seeking his placement at serial No. 66 but he has not impleaded the existing incumbents from serial No. 66 to 154 as party in the petition who are ultimately going to be affected in case Petitioner is given the placement at serial No. 66. In absence of impleadment of such persons, the Petitioner cannot be granted the relief of his placement at serial No. 66. Moreover, the Petitioner has not made out a case for his placement at serial No. 66 in the seniority list as existed on 1.1.1999. The Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard vide office order No. 21 dated 17.1.1985 of Divisional Forest Officer, Shimla Working Plan Division, Khalini, Shimla Annexure R-I. The Petitioner worked on daily wage from the year 1979 to the year 1984 and no provision has been shown by Petitioner to count daily wage services of the Petitioner from the year 1979 to 1984. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for counting of daily wage service from April, 1979 to August, 1984 for his seniority.

The Petitioner has also prayed to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger from the date persons junior to him were promoted. The Petitioner in support of this claim has not pleaded necessary particulars. It has not been pleaded that who are those alleged juniors who have been promoted Deputy Rangers superseding the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger on the ground of supersession is vague and therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to this relief also.

No other point was urged.

The result of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.