Tej Bahadur Singh vs State

R.C. Gandhi, Judge

Petitioner by means of this petition is seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and promote the petition

as Range officer Grade -1 retrospectively from the date S/Shri Romesh Chander Gupta, Abdul Rashid Malik and Mohd. Rafiq Bhat, Range

officers have been promoted as Range officers Grade-1.

The petitioner was appointed as Forester in the year 1980. He joined Kashmir Forest Training School, Chittemar in 1981-82 session for

undergoing the training.

It is averred that in the result, the authorties conducting the examinations played fraud by tempering his result and did not account for the due

marks accrued by him. The petitioner according to him has secured the first position but the said authorities declared him to have secured second

position. He made representation to the Chief Conservator of Forests in May, 1981.

Petitioner made another representation on 5.9.1982 to the Minister for Forests, who directed the Chief Conservator of Forests to take

appropriate action and report within a week positively. The Chief Conservator of Forests in turn referred his representation to the Conservator of

Forests, W.Plan and Research Circle, Srinagar, who replied the letter under his communication No. 834/E dated 1.06.1985, relevant portion

whereof is extracted as under:-

However, the examination of the answer book reveals:

In Survey and Drawing Roll No. 7 i.e. S. Tej Bahadur Singh has been awarded 23 marks in question No. 2, whereas in the total only 13 marks

to this question have been accounted for.

Question No. 4 of Survey and Drawing has been attempted by Roll No. 7 wheras no marks have been awarded for the same.

In comparison Roll No. 18 who has stood first has been awarded 9 marks for question No. 4 of 'Mensuration' which seem to be unjustified.

The whole matter looks, as a fishy.

It may not be out of place to mention here that 2 candidates have secured first position and S. Tej Bahadur Singh, representation is under review,

stands second. It is evident that some injustice has been meted out to this trainee (S. Tej Bahdur Singh).

The respondents, recommended the petitioner for undergoing DDR Training Course at Gujrat Forest Rangers College, Rajpipla, as a special

case, admitting that injustice has been caused to the petitioner, in lieu of redressal of his grievance. The petitioner has undergone and passed the

said training course with honours and has been awarded the prize of ""Indian Forest

Copy of this certificate has been attached with this petition. Petitioner has been appointed Range officer Grade -I, vide Government order no. 244

of 1987 dated 14.07.1989.

The grievance of the petitioner is that S/Shri Romesh Chander Gupta, Abdul Rashid Malik and Mohd. Rafiq Bhat could steal march over him by

manipulation of the result in their favour which has caused injustice to the petitioner, therefore, he is claiming that he should also be promoted as

Range officer Grade -1 from the dates they have been appointed. Shri Abdul Rashid Malik was appointed as Range Officer vide Forest order No.

103 of 1984 dated 6-4-1984 w.e.f. 3.4.1984. Sh. Romesh Chander Gupta was appointed as Range Officer vide Forest order No. 549 of 1984

dated 19.11.1984 w.e.f. 12.11.1984 and Mohd. Rafiq bhat vide Forest Order No. 100 of 1986 dated 15.03.1986 w.e.f 3.3.1986. The

petitioner is also seeking similar relief of his retrospective appointment.

Respondents were notified who opted not to file objections to the maintainability of the writ petition and the petition was ultimately admitted to

hearing on 24.05.1993 providing opportunity to the respondents to file counter affidavit. Despite grant of opportunities since 1992 the respondents

have not filed counter affidavit.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

The averments of the petitioner have not been controverted by the respondents by filing proper counter-affidavit. The averments are required to

be taken as true and correct. This law has been laid down by various High Courts of the country including Allahabad High Court reported in

Lokesh Chandra Vs. Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly and Others, which reads:-

Where no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of any of the opposite parties the facts alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition

have to be accepted as true.

It is established from the averments of the petition that the petitioner has undergone DDR training course with honours and awarded certificate

of ""India Forester."" The petitioner has secured 1st position, according to him and in terms of the provisions of SRO 654, notified on December 5,

1979, he is entitled to be promoted/appointed as Range Officer Grade -1. The relevant position of the SRO is reproduced as under:-

The direct recruitment quota will also include Matriculate Foresters with less than 10 years service and having stood first in K.F.C. and having

successfully completed Rangers Training Course at any Recognised Rangers College in whose case the condition of qualifying examination and

waling test shall not be applicable.

S/Shri Abdul Rashid Malik, and Romesh Chander Gupta and Shri Mohd Rafiq bhat have been granted this benefit on successful completion of the

course in the year 1984 and 1986 retrospectively. The petitioner having secured first position, is also entitled to seek the same relief and should

have been promoted in the year 1987. The circumstances which the petitioner has projected in the petition, if are taken to be true, he was entitled

to have secured 'First Position' in the training at Chitternar in 1981-82 and accordingly was entitled to undergo DDR training course immediately

thereafter. Shri Abdul Rashid Malik and Romesh Chander Gupta were considered and sent to undergo the said cousre while the petitioner

remained making efforts to seek redressal against injustice meted out to him. The respondents having admitted the injustice caused to the petitioner,

as a special case, accorded sanction for undergoing DDRs training course in favour of the petitioner. The injustice appears to have been done to

the petitioner even after his securing First Position in DDRs course, for having not been promoted since 1987 whereas others have been promoted

from the similar year and date. The petitioner, therefore, has been discriminated and not treated similarly. He is found entitled to the similar relief

and treatment.

For the aforesaid reasons this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to promote/appoint the petitioner as Range Officer Grade-I from

the date he has passed DDRs training course and extent him all the monetary and service benefit.

No orders as to costs.