Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 710 (HP)

Suman Singh v. Indian Council of Forestry

2014-06-03

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) That impugned decision reflected in letter dated 7.6.2012, Annexure P-19 cancelling the selection process for the posts of Forest Guards initiated pursuant to advertisement, Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) That the respondents may be directed to offer appointment to the petitioners to the posts of Forest Guards as per recommendations of selection committee as reflected in result sheet, Annexure P-10, with all consequential benefits. (iii) That if during the pendency of present writ petition, fresh selection process is initiated for the posts of Forest Guards, for which recommendations have already been made as per Annexure P-10, in that event initiation of such fresh selection process may also be quashed and set aside. 2. For filling up three posts (2 General and 1ST) of Van Rakshaks (Forest Guards), respondent No.2 issued an advertisement (Ex. P-1), in the month of April, 2011, prescribing the following eligibility criteria: Matric Pass Desirable: 1. Experience in the relevant trade. 2. No weightage will be assigned to extra/additional qualification. 3. Knowledge of local culture, language, terrain etc., be given preference. Age 18-25 General Category 18-28 OBC 18-30 SC/ST and according to Government of India Rules. 3. Undisputedly, various applications were received, including that of petitioners. Selection Committee, which met on 2.9.2011, finding the rules to be silent, laid down its own criteria for screening and evaluating the merit of the candidates. Candidates were short-listed for physical test and interview, which fact is evident from Annexure P-5. Indisputably, no final selection list was either prepared or circulated. 4. Respondent No.2 is a body directly under the control of respondent No.1. Vide communication dated 30.3.2012 (Annexure P-13), respondent No.1 pointed out the discrepancies in the selection process. It would be beneficial to extract the contents of the letter, which read as under: “Please refer to your letter No.1-1(7) 2012/HFRI/1076 dated 22nd March, 2012 enclosing therewith proceedings of the Selection Committee meeting for the post of Forest Guard held on 16.03.2012. In this connection, it is stated that: a. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that “No weightage will be assigned to extra/additional qualification”. However, the weightage has been given on the basis of marks obtained by the candidate in Matric examination. b. In advertisement the age limit was indicated as follows: Gen: 18-25 years; OBC 18-28 years; SC/ST 18-30 years. In this connection, it is stated that: a. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that “No weightage will be assigned to extra/additional qualification”. However, the weightage has been given on the basis of marks obtained by the candidate in Matric examination. b. In advertisement the age limit was indicated as follows: Gen: 18-25 years; OBC 18-28 years; SC/ST 18-30 years. Two posts were Unreserved and one reserved for ST candidates. As per clarifications received from Ministry, age relaxation to reserved categories against unreserved posts is not admissible under the rules of Government of India. As such, the age limit for SC & OBC should have not been mentioned in the advertisement. c. The dates of birth of the candidates have not been indicated in the proceedings. As such, the eligibility of candidates could not be confirmed by this office. d. The marks obtained in the Written Test should also be taken into account for preparing final merit list. Therefore, it is requested to furnish the abstract of bio-data of all applicants indicating date of birth, educational qualification and category etc. and marks obtained by the candidates in written test.” 5. The matter was further examined and eventually vide communication dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure P-19), respondent No.1 cancelled the proceedings of the Selection Committee. Contents of the letter read as under: “Please refer to your letter No.1-1(7)2012/HFRI/24 dated 09th April 2012 on the above mentioned subject. In this connection, I am directed to state that serious irregularities have been notices, while selecting Forest Guard in HFRI, Shimla. The Director General has taken serious view of this irregularity and directed that an Officer of ICFRE may be nominated as Special invitee in the institutes of ICFRE while making recruitment/selection on the post(s) of direct recruitment quota. The proceedings of the Selection Committee are cancelled and Director HFRI is requested to make immediate report regarding officials responsible for this misconduct. Further it is requested to advertise the posts afresh and conduct the recruitment again.” 6. Taking holistic view of the matter, no error can be found with such action. To begin with, as stands explained by respondent No.1, advertisement was issued contrary to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Desirable qualification, under the Rules, was Home Guard Training, which for unexplained reasons was not even referred to in the advertisement. Taking holistic view of the matter, no error can be found with such action. To begin with, as stands explained by respondent No.1, advertisement was issued contrary to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Desirable qualification, under the Rules, was Home Guard Training, which for unexplained reasons was not even referred to in the advertisement. Similarly, though Rules did not prescribe the requirement of age with respect to candidates belonging to OBC/SC categories, but was inserted in the advertisement. Not only that, criteria prescribed by the Selection Committee (Annexure P-4) was not in consonance with the prevalent recruitment procedures. It was in this backdrop that the competent authority cancelled the selection process vide impugned communication dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure P-19). 7. The irregularities cannot be said to be minor. Rights of several candidates, who otherwise were eligible, stand affected. Candidates, who otherwise had obtained training in Home Guards or were otherwise eligible, falling in the category of SC/ST could not have applied, in view of conditions laid down in the advertisement. 8. It be only observed that prior to completion of the selection process, respondent No.1 itself took remedial measures. As such, no indefeasible right can be said to have accrued in favour of the petitioners, merely on the basis of short-listing of their names by the screening committee. Hence, the present writ petition, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any.