Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 196 (JK)

Syed Riyaz Qadiri v. State

2008-05-16

HAKIM IMTIYAZ HUSSAIN

body2008
1. Petitioners namely Syed Riyaz Qadir, Syed Jawad-ul-Hassan and Syed Ghulam Hassan Shah are presently working as Range Officers in the State Forest Department. They are aggrieved of the seniority list of Foresters (DDR Trained) issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vide Order No. 31 of 2003 dated 3.2.2003. Petitioners have been shown at S. Nos. 63 , 61 and 62 respectively in the said list. They are also aggrieved of the placement of private respondents Nos. 3 to 19 who have been shown senior to the petitioners in the said seniority list. 2. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed in the department in the year 1978 as Deputy Forester. In the year 1988 he was promoted as Forester. During the Session 1988-89 he completed Foresters Training Course ( KFC) and secured first position in his batch. 3. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as Forester in the year 1987 initially on adhoc basis. In the year 1992 his services as Forester were regularised. He was deputed for Forestry Training Course (KFC) Session 1992-93. He obtained second position in the said course. Later in August 1994 (25.8.1994) he was shown as first position holder in the said examination. 4. Petitioner NO:3 completed his Forestry Training Course ( KFC) in the year 1986-87. At that time he was working as Deputy Forester. He obtained first position in the said training course. In the year 1989 he was promoted as Forester vide Order NO: 293 of 1989 dated 26.10.1989. 5. Petitioners state that in view of the status and position they had obtained in the `KFC training course, they were entitled for deputation to undergo DDR Rangers Course but the respondent-department did not sent them for the said course. They allege that respondents 3 to 19, who too were working as Foresters in the department were deputed to undergo the course though they were ineligible for the same and did not satisfy the conditions prescribed by the rules. These respondents were deputed for the course for the session 1993-1995 and 1994-1996. Feeling aggrieved of their non-selection for the course, the petitioners filed a petition SWP NO: 854/1994 ( by petitioner Syed Jawad-ul-Hassan) and SWP No: 1210 of 1993 ( by petitioners Gh. Hassan and Syed Riaz Qadiri) in this court for their deputation to the course. These respondents were deputed for the course for the session 1993-1995 and 1994-1996. Feeling aggrieved of their non-selection for the course, the petitioners filed a petition SWP NO: 854/1994 ( by petitioner Syed Jawad-ul-Hassan) and SWP No: 1210 of 1993 ( by petitioners Gh. Hassan and Syed Riaz Qadiri) in this court for their deputation to the course. It was on the directions of the Court that they were deputed for the DDR Rangers Course in the year 1994. The petitioners state that they are in all respects senior to the respondents Nos. 3 to 19, who according to the petitioners were appointed in service during the period from 1979 to 1991. They state that respondents 3,5,6,7,12,14 to 18 are junior to petitioner no;1 while as petitioner no.3 is senior to respondents 12,14,15,17 & 18. The petitioners further state that despite the illegal and improper admission of the respondents 3 to 19 coupled with their ineligibility to the admission of DDR Rangers course, in the final seniority list these respondents, have been shown senior to the petitioners. They state that since the basis on which seniority has been determined i.e. DDR Rangers Course is wrong , the placement of the respondents in the seniority list is improper and incorrect and that they should be shown junior to the petitioner. 6. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing Forest Order NO;31 of 2003 dated 3.2.2003 `in so far it wrongly fixs the seniority of the petitioners at Nos. 63,61 and 62 respectively. They have further prayed that the respondents be directed to treat the petitioners as senior to respondents 3 to 19 and on the basis of this seniority the respondents be directed to consider the petitioners for further promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. 7. On 5.3.2008 the petitioners filed a motion ( CMP No. 514 of 2008) for the amendment of the petition to incorporate the following additional prayer. It is further prayed that by a writ of mandamus respondents be directed to grant promotion to the petitioners as Range Officers grade-I as from 1.11.1996 when they completed their DDR Training Course. Government Order No: 249-FST of 1997 dated 30.4.1997 and Government Order No. 388-FST of 1998 dated 16.11.1998 be directed to be modified accordingly and consequently the seniority of the petitioners be fixed. 8. Government Order No: 249-FST of 1997 dated 30.4.1997 and Government Order No. 388-FST of 1998 dated 16.11.1998 be directed to be modified accordingly and consequently the seniority of the petitioners be fixed. 8. Official respondents have, in their reply stated that the respondents 3 to 19 were deputed to undergo DDR training course and on completion of the course they were declared successful. The question of deputation for undergoing training course by respondents 3 to 19 cannot be now agitated after a gap of more than 15 years. They have further stated that the seniority of private respondents stand fixed as per their entitlement and there is nothing wrong or illegal in itas alleged by the petitioner. Regarding promotions of the Foresters to the post of Range Officers Grade-I the respondents have in para 4 of their reply stated that in terms of Gazetted Recruitment Rules of Forests Department 20% quota in the category of Range Officer Grade-I stand reserved for promotion to the DDR trained Foresters and on the basis of quota the case of promotion/regularization of DDR Foresters against their quota was taken up with the DPC/PHC in the year 2003 and the DPC has cleared the promotion of 47 in service DDR trained Foresters as Range Officers Grade-I with effect from different dates and accordingly the orders of promotion were issued in their favour on the basis of seniority having reference to passing of DDR training course. 9. Private respondents No: 3 to 19 have, in their separate reply, stated that the petition is liable to be dismissed as the petition has been filed after great delay and latches. The petitioners are challenging the final seniority list dated 3.2.2003 in the year 2007. They further state that the respondents have completed their KFC training course much before the petitioners, they have rightly been given placement above the petitioners in the seniority list. The seniority list has, according to the respondents, assumed finality and it was called in question from 3.2.2003 by the petitioners in any manner whatsoever, therefore, they are now legally estopped from challenging the same. 10. Heard. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the present petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed after a great delay and the same, therefore, suffers from latches. 10. Heard. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the present petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed after a great delay and the same, therefore, suffers from latches. In support of his submissions he has relied on B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab AIR 1999 SC 1510. 12. Per contra Mr. Shah states that the petitioners challenge seniority list which has been issued in the year 2004 but as the rights have not be settled so far latches will not come in their way. He has relied on G.P. Doual and others v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. 1984 (4) SCC 329,Tilockchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi 1969 (1) SCC 110 and Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, 1974 (1) SCC 317. 13. In M/s Tilokchand & Motichand, 1969 (1) SCC 110 (135) it was held that laches on the part of an aggrieved party cannot deprive him of the right to get relief from the Court under Art. 32. The case is not applicable as it was found that there was mistake of law on the part of the aggrieved party in approaching the Court. The Court observed that right to approach Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right and the power is not similar to the power conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 14. In Ramchandra Shankar Deodhars case (1974) 1 SCC 317 it was held that the claim for enforcement of the fundamental right of equal opportunity under Art. 16 is itself a fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 32 and this Court which has been assigned the role of a sentinel on the quivive for protection of the fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to be persudaded to refuse relief solely on the jejune ground of laches, delay or the like. In G.P. Douals case (Supra) the Supreme Court did not entertain the objection regarding delay and latches on the ground that the respondents had not finalised the seniority list for a period of more than 12 years. The Court found that the petitioner had went on making representations after representations which did not yield any response, reply or relief. 15. Thus on the facts of these case I find these authorities are not applicable to the present case. 16. The Court found that the petitioner had went on making representations after representations which did not yield any response, reply or relief. 15. Thus on the facts of these case I find these authorities are not applicable to the present case. 16. Having heard both the sides and perused the pleadings of the parties I am satisfied that present writ petition cannot stand as the same has been filed after inordinate delay. 17. Forest Order No. 31 of 2003 dated 3.2.2003 which is impugned in the present writ petition has been made on 3.2.2003. Before that the respondents issued a tentative seniority list of Forests (DDR Trained) which too was circulated vide endorsement No.PCCF/Estt/G/R.O/Sen/451-600 dated 11.12.2002 for inviting objections from the concerned officers with regard to their proposed placement in the seniority list. The last date fixed for receiving the objections was fixed as 1.1.2003. The order impugned shows that about 19 officers filed their objections to the tentative seniority list. The petitioners herein did not file their objections as such did not object to the tentative seniority list. As such their grievance, if any, was not considered by the respondents. The petitioners have not given sufficient reasons for not filing objections to the tentative seniority list. Since the petitioners did not file their objections, their names remained at S. No. 63, 61, 62 as shown in the tentative seniority list. 18. The petitioner even did not object to the order dated 31 of 2003 dated 3.2.2003 impugned in the present petition and did not raise any objections for about 4 years as this writ petition has been filed by them in May 2007. The ground for remaining silent during this period and filing writ petition after about 4 years is not convincing at all. 19. The petitioners are aggrieved of deputation of private respondents to DDR Training Course. The petitioners have undergone the course in the year 1990-94 and 1994-96. Petitioners did not object to it at the relevant time and have not filed any representation or a petition challenging the deputation of petitioners on such training. 19. The petitioners are aggrieved of deputation of private respondents to DDR Training Course. The petitioners have undergone the course in the year 1990-94 and 1994-96. Petitioners did not object to it at the relevant time and have not filed any representation or a petition challenging the deputation of petitioners on such training. They have filed writ petitions for seeking relief for their deputation to said training and vide interim orders dated 1.6.1994 in SWP No. 854/94 and 12.7.993 in SWP No. 1210/93 they got an interim relief from the Court for deputation to the said training but even in those petitions the petitioners did not challenge the deputation of respondents to such training. Since at the relevant time they did not raise any objection and did not challenge the deputation of petitioners for such training, they cannot do so now by means of the present writ petition. 20. Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst the employees because of stale claims made after a lapse of reasonable time. It is essential that anyone who feels aggrieved with an administrative decision affecting ones seniority should act with due diligence and promptitude and not sleep over the matter. 21. In this behalf reliance can be placed on B.S. Bajwas case ( supra) cited by Mr. Qayoom where the Apex Court observed that in service matters the question of seniority should not be re-opened after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay, in the said case for challenging the seniority list and the Court held that this alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition. 22. In view of the above conclusion it is not necessary to express any opinion on the merits of other issues raised by the learned counsels. Since the petitioners have permitted the respondents to act upon the seniority list of 2003 and have now challenged the same after about 4 years of its publication and that since the petitioners have not even objected to the tentative seniority list issued in 2001 by the respondents, this alone is a sufficient ground to refuse to interfere and to dismiss the writ petition. 23. Petition is accordingly dismissed.