Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 832 (MP)

Sheikh Bafati v. State of M. P.

2012-08-31

ALOK ARADHE

body2012
ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Forest Guard from the date when other candidates have been appointed and to accord them all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioners had participated in the process of recruitment which was held for the post of Forest Guard. The petitioners were selected and an order of appointment was issued to them by the respondent No.4 on 31.8.2010. However, the petitioners were denied the joining on the ground that the State Government has stayed appointment on the post of Forest Guards vide order dated 8.9.2010. However, subsequently the aforesaid ban imposed by the State Government was lifted vide order dated 1.10.2010. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners No.1 and 2 have been given appointment vide order dated 5.4.2011 on the posts of Forest Guard, however, no appointment letter was issued in the favour of the petitioner No.3. 3. This Court vide order dated 28.11.2011 had directed the respondents to explain as to why petitioner No.3 was not granted appointment and as to what happened about the vacant post against which the petitioner No.3 was appointed. 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, an additional return has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the additional return, it has been stated that subsequently by order dated 1.4.2011, three posts which were initially advertised in the District of Tikamgarh was reduced to two as per the roster. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the communication dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure P-10), sent by the Chief Conservator of Forest to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and submitted that eight posts of Forest Guards in general category were vacant in the District Tikamgarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited the attention of this Court to a chart annexed with Annexure P-3, and submitted that out of six posts, three posts of Forest Guards were filled up from Tikamgarh District. It was also submitted that despite specific order issued by this Court, the respondents have failed to justify the stand which has been taken by them. 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents submitted that by subsequent order dated 1.4.2011 two posts of Forest Guard were filled up belonging to unreserved category were kept vacant for the District Tikamgarh. 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents submitted that by subsequent order dated 1.4.2011 two posts of Forest Guard were filled up belonging to unreserved category were kept vacant for the District Tikamgarh. Therefore, petitioners No.1 and 2 were given appointment on the posts of Forest Guards and in absence of vacancy of the post of Forest Guard, petitioner No.3 has not been appointed on the post of Forest Guard. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that by an order dated 23.8.2010, six posts of Forest Guards in Chhatarpur Forest Circle were to be filled up, out of which three posts of Forest Guards were to be filled up from the District Tikamgarh. The Conservator of Forest by the communication dated 5.10.2010 had informed to the Chief Conservator of Forest that eight posts of Forest Guards in general category are lying vacant in Tikamgarh Forest Circle. This Court vide order dated 28.11.2011 had directed the respondents to explain as to why if the process of selection was undertaken for appointment of three vacant posts, petitioner No.3 was not granted appointment and what has happened about the vacant post against which the petitioner No.3 was appointed. However, on perusal of the additional return, it is apparent that the respondents had not taken any specific stand except by stating that only two posts of general category were available for appointment, therefore, the petitioner No.3 could not be appointed. However, no explanation has been given about communication dated 5.10.2010 sent by the Conservator of Forest to the Chief Conservator of Forest regarding eight post lying vacant in Tikamgarh Forest Circle. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner No.3 was appointed on the post of Forest Guard vide order dated 31.8.2010. Therefore, the respondents now cannot be permitted to contend that there is no vacant post of Forest Guard. Therefore, the action of respondents in refusing to appoint the petitioner No.3 on the post of Forest Guards cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue the order of appointment to the petitioner No.3 on the post of Forest Guard from the date when such appointment was given to the petitioners No.1 and 2 and to accord him all the consequential benefits. 8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue the order of appointment to the petitioner No.3 on the post of Forest Guard from the date when such appointment was given to the petitioners No.1 and 2 and to accord him all the consequential benefits. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of order passed today. In the result the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.