Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 244 (UTT)

Shiv Prasad Gairola v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-06-07

K.M.JOSEPH, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Posting Order dated 27th February 2016 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dehradun Forest Division, Dehradun, whereby a person junior to the petitioner has been given the charge of the post of Forest Range Officer, Jhajhara Range, Dehradun Forest Division, Dehradun, contrary to the guidelines issued by the higher authorities regarding grant of the charge of the Range to the Ranger Incharge. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the petitioner the charge of the Jhajhra Range of Dehradun Forest Division, Dehradun as the petitioner is senior to the respondent no. 5 on the post of Deputy Ranger /Ranger Incharge.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is working as a Deputy Range Officer. He is senior to respondent No. 5. The complaint is that, despite his being senior, he has not been given the charge as Ranger and, in his place, respondent No. 5, who is junior to him, has been given the charge. Petitioner would rely on Annexure No. 1, as per which, he has been selected for being given the charge in the vacant post of Range Officer. He would also draw our attention to the selfsame communication to contend that this is a matter, which is to be done in terms of seniority; but, still, as per the impugned order, respondent No. 5 has been given the charge. It was done by the DFO defying the order passed by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest as per Annexure No. 1. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the DFO, it is inter alia stated that respondent No. 5 has a better record going by the entries in the ACR and, as he is more meritorious than the petitioner, he was given the charge. A contention was taken up by Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, that persons junior to respondent No. 5, though they are also junior to the petitioner, have been given charge in other ranges. He would point out that the petitioner has not challenged the giving of charge to those junior officers and respondent No. 5 has been singled out. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, that persons junior to respondent No. 5, though they are also junior to the petitioner, have been given charge in other ranges. He would point out that the petitioner has not challenged the giving of charge to those junior officers and respondent No. 5 has been singled out. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. Therein, we notice the following stand: “4. That it is pertinent to submit here that the entire process regarding the transfer, posting and exchange of charge of the Forest Range Officers / Deputy Forest Range Officers is done at the departmental level where the Administrative Department of the Government has no role to play. 5. That it is also relevant to submit here that the Government order no. 2177 dated 05.09.2013 has been issued which says that in case of dearth of the Forest Range Officers the Deputy Forest Range Officers would be given charge of only Non-Territorial Forest Range, as per seniority. A copy of the Government order dated 05.09.2013 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA 1 to this affidavit.” 4. In communication dated 05.09.2013, it is stated that it has come to knowledge that, in many Ranges, charge has been given to Deputy Range Officers and that they should be relieved from the post and Range Officers be given the charge. At the same time, it is stated that, in respect of non-territorial forest range, charge should be given to the Deputy Range Officers on the basis of seniority. Therefore, the case that is sought to be set up by the learned Standing Counsel for the State is that, when it comes to a territorial forest range, charge is to be decided on the basis of merit; whereas, in respect of non-territorial forest range, it should be based on pure seniority. In this case, the range in question is not a non-territorial forest range. Therefore, being a territorial forest range, it is on the basis of merit alone that the charge could be given, runs the argument of the learned Standing Counsel. 5. In fact, Mr. In this case, the range in question is not a non-territorial forest range. Therefore, being a territorial forest range, it is on the basis of merit alone that the charge could be given, runs the argument of the learned Standing Counsel. 5. In fact, Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would point out that, in many ranges, in particular those in the remote areas, charge of Range Officer has been given to officers below the cadre of Deputy Range Officers such as Foresters. 6. We would think that, in this matter, a decision must be taken by the first respondent having noticed the conflict between Annexure No. 1 and the impugned order projected by the petitioner and also the stand of the Government as reflected in order dated 05.09.2013. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition as follows: We direct the first respondent to take a decision in the matter. We may also notice that, as far as possible, the vacancies of Forest Range Officers should be manned by the properly selected Range Officers themselves. Any delay in appointment of officers at the level of Forest Range Officer can be deleterious to the proper administration of the range and it will certainly not be in public interest. These are all matters, which we hope will engage the attention of the first respondent. To facilitate a proper decision being taken, petitioner is given a week’s time from today to represent the matter. Thereafter, the first respondent will hear the petitioner and respondent No. 5 and will take a decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation.