State Of Uttarakhand And Others vs Vijay Pal Singh

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

There is delay of 69 days in filing this appeal. For the reasons indicated in the Delay Condonation Application CLMA No.7682 of 2018, we condone the delay. Delay Condonation Application stands allowed.

State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 19.02.2018 rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 325 of 2009. By the said judgment, the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the authorities were directed to offer appointment to the respondent as Forest Guard from due date with all consequential benefits. Operative portion of impugned judgment is extracted below:-

“Since petitioner was paid on voucher/muster-roll basis, hence it cannot be termed that he was paid on daily-wage basis. Petitioner had already completed three years as Seasonal Worker and fall within the definition, as noticed hereinabove.

Moreover, the status of the petitioner was to be determined not on the mode of payment but whether he has worked for three seasonal years or not.

The mode of payment of wages is not valid criteria to be seen at the time of regularization.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned Annexure No. 7 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner as Forest Guard from due date with all consequential benefits, within ten weeks from today.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.”

State has challenged the said judgment only on the ground that the respondent was not serving as seasonal employee on the date of selection, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of relevant Rules and learned Single Judge erred in holding that respondent is entitled for the benefit available to seasonal employees.

Learned counsels for the parties are unanimous on the point that, as per the applicable Recruitment Rules, seasonal employees are entitled for appointment on the post of Forest Guard against 65% posts and 25% was required to be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining 10% are earmarked to be filled by promotion of Group ‘D’ employees.

Learned State Counsel submits that the respondent was not entitled for appointment as Forest Guard against vacancies reserved for seasonal employees as he was not working on the date of making application and he had served as seasonal employee only up to 2006, while advertisement was issued on 12/13.07.2008.

The definition of “Seasonal Workers” as given in Rule 3 (i) of the applicable Recruitment Rules is reproduced in the impugned judgment. There is no requirement of serving as seasonal employee on the date of advertisement or on the date of making application mentioned in the Rules, Thus, we concur with the view expressed by learned Single Judge. The advertisement also does not mention any condition that one should be serving as seasonal employee on the date of making application for appointment. In the absence of any stipulation in the Rules/advertisement, the eligibility of the respondent for appointment cannot be taken away.

Law is well settled that in case of ambiguity in the rules or advertisement, benefit thereof has to be given to the candidate concerned. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

Learned State Counsel submits that learned Single Judge has directed the authorities to appoint the respondent with all consequential benefits in disregard of his ranking in the merit list, which is not proper. We find substance in the said submission. Selection for public employment is merit based. There may be other candidates, who competed for the vacancies reserved for seasonal employees, and may have scored more marks than the respondent. We, therefore, modify the direction issued by the impugned judgment and direct the Competent Authority to consider the claim of respondent for appointment strictly as per his merit/marks scored in the selection.

Subject to the above, present appeal stands disposed of.