Mohinder Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner has assailed the appointment of Respondents No. 3 and 4 to the post of Forest Guard. Case of the Petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was ranking senior to Respondents No. 3 and 4 in the seniority list. However, he has been over looked for promotion to the post of Forest Guard.

Mr. Ramesh Sharma has strenuously argued that his client, being senior, ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Forest Guard.

Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the promotions were made on the basis of limited competitive test held on 6.6.2003.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.

Fourteen posts of Forest Guards were allotted to Chamba Forest Circle vide letter dated 21.3.2003. A committee was constituted consisting of Conservator of Forest, as Chairman, Divisional Forest Officer, Chamba and the-then Divisional Forest Officer (Headquarters). The following criteria was adopted by the Selection Committee:

i) for minimum educational qualification = 10 marks ii) General knowledge =10 marks iii) Experience and extra curricular activities = 7 marks iv) Personality = 3 marks.

The suitability of the Petitioner has been adjudged by a duly constituted Selection Committee. Respondents No. 3 and 4 were found suitable as per the criteria prescribed for limited competitive test. Respondent-State has filled up ten posts of general category, three posts of Scheduled Caste category and one post of Schedule Tribe category. Since Respondents No. 3 and 4 have been found more meritorious on the basis of limited competitive test, as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, there is no illegality in their promotion.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.