Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2441 (RAJ)

Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-13

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Honble VYAS, J.–The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dtd. 28.10.2004 whereby the selection grade granted to the petitioner has been ordered to be withdrawn and the recovery has been ordered to be made may kindly be quashed and set aside. (2). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Forester by order dtd. 7.4.1987 after regular process of selection. (3). Further case of the petitioner is that with a view to remove the financial stagnation of the employees working with the State Government and to grant them financial relief the State Government was pleased enough to provide selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service vide notification dtd. 25.1.1992. (4). According to the notification dtd. 25.1.1992, if an employee complete 18 years of service and if he has already been accorded one promotion, then he is entitled to get second selection grade only after completion of 18 years of service. The first selection grade is not available to such an employee, who has already been granted one promotion. (5). Since the petitioner was not granted promotion, therefore, on completion of 9 years of service, he was granted first selection grade vide order dtd. 17.9.1998. (6). It has also been averred in the writ petition that by virtue of the policy of the Government, the services of the petitioner were transferred under the control of Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. (7). Further case of the petitioner is that the Divisional Forest Officer, Jodhpur vide order dtd. 28.10.2004, has withdrawn the selection grades granted to the petitioner as the petitioner was trained and has directed recovery of excess amount from the petitioner. (8). In this writ petition, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before issuing the order dtd. 28.10.2004, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and hence, the same is violative of Principles of Natural Justice. It has also been averred by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Clause 5 of the order dtd. 25.1.1992 where the persons do not possess the academic qualification of the promotion post at the time when the first selection grade is granted, he shall be granted the selection grade as mentioned under this clause. Therefore, also withdrawal of selection is not justified. 25.1.1992 where the persons do not possess the academic qualification of the promotion post at the time when the first selection grade is granted, he shall be granted the selection grade as mentioned under this clause. Therefore, also withdrawal of selection is not justified. (9). The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that recently an order dtd. 19.5.1998 has been issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest, IGNP clarifying the position for the purpose of grant of selection grade to the untrained forester and it has been held that untrained Forester are also entitled for the selection grades. (10). A Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that since the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for the promotion, therefore, he is not entitled to get selection grade. It has also been submitted that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur vide order dtd. 19.6.2004 (Annex. R/3) has issued directions that those foresters who have failed to undergo the training, still the benefit of the selection grade has been released to them, then the selection grades granted to them are cancelled. (11). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and scrutinised and scanned the material available on record. (12). Admittedly, the petitioner is working as untrained Forester and he has been granted the selection grades on completion of 9 years of service vide order dtd. 17.9.1998. (13). The selections grades released to the petitioner have been withdrawn by order dtd. 28.10.2004 without any notice or opportunity of hearing on the ground that the petitioner is not trained. (14). The question which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the present case is whether the withdrawal of selection grade granted to the petitioner is justified or not and whether it affects the vested right of the petitioner who has been granted the selection grades in conformity with the circular dtd. 25.1.1992. (15). The controversy involved in the instant petition has been set at rest by the various decisions of this Court as well as decision of Honble Supreme Court. (16). This Court in the case of Pushplata Thada vs. State, reported in 2001 (2) WLC (Raj.) 560 = RLW 2001(3) Raj. 25.1.1992. (15). The controversy involved in the instant petition has been set at rest by the various decisions of this Court as well as decision of Honble Supreme Court. (16). This Court in the case of Pushplata Thada vs. State, reported in 2001 (2) WLC (Raj.) 560 = RLW 2001(3) Raj. 1555, has held that the withdrawal of selection grade without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner is illegal. This Court has also held that the for the purpose of grant of selection grade, service is to be counted from the date of initial appointed and not from the date of training. (17). Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Smt. Annama Chako vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1998 WLR (Raj.) 424. (18). That apart, even if the petitioner does not possess the required qualification for promotion, he is entitled to get selection grade in view of Clause 5 of the Circular dtd. 25.1.1992. Even the Chief Conservator of Forest, IGNP has issued an order dtd. 19.5.1998 clarifying that untrained foresters are also entitled to get selection grade. (19). Thus, withdrawal of selection grade granted to the petitioner is not proper. The petitioner is entitled for grant of selection grade and after having granted the selection grade in accordance with the circular dtd. 25.1.1992, the same could not be withdrawn without any show cause notice to the petitioner as it involves the basic rights, involving civil consequences. Therefore, the action of the respondents in withdrawing the selection grade is violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the respondents are not entitled to initiate recovery proceedings pursuant to order dtd. 28.10.2004. In case, any recovery has already been made the recovered amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. (20). For the reasons mentioned above, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dtd. 28.10.2004 is quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits and in case any recovery has already been made in pursuance of order dtd. 28.10.2004, the recovered amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. (21). No order as to costs.