AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Tractor Driver from the date his juniors were promoted w.e.f. 24.05.2018 and all consequential benefits be released to the petitioner; AND issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned communication dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-5) vide which the request submitted by the petitioner for withdrawal of the option for promotion to the post of Clerk has been rejected; AND issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure P-7) vide which directions have been issued to the petitioner to immediately join as Clerk in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Sirsa; AND it is further prayed that during the pendency of the present writ petition, operation of the impugned order dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure P-7) may kindly be stayed and the petitioner be allowed to continue on the post of Peon in the office of Range Forest Officer, Tohana, District Fatehabad, in the interest of justice.
Brief sequence of events in chronological order is as follows:–
18.07.2014: The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the respondent Forest Department and joined in District Fatehabad falling under the West Circle.
21.07.2014: Krishan Kumar, junior to the petitioner, was appointed as a Chowkidar in the same West Circle. Another junior, Manish, also joined as Chowkidar on the same date. The petitioner is stated to be 10+2 qualified, whereas the said juniors were 10th pass.
18.10.2014: Annexure P-8 is the Driving License of the petitioner, which was issued on 18.10.2014.
02.05.2018: The Forest Division Officer, Fatehabad communicated to the Forests Conservator, West Circle, Karnal vide letter dated 02.05.2018 (Annexure P-2) that no Class-IV employee in the Division was eligible for promotion to the post of Tractor Driver.
Later the petitioner represented to the Principal Chief Forests Conservator stating that no information was given by DFO and neither service record was called for nor considered despite his eligibility.
24.05.2018: The Principal Chief Forests Conservator, Haryana issued Office Order dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure P-1), whereby employees junior to the petitioner, were promoted to the post of Tractor Driver.
15.02.2019 and 06.12.2019: The petitioner submitted a representation / appeal (Annexures P-2A & P-2B), pointing out that he had not been informed about the process of promotion and that his record had not been placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee. He requested promotion to the post of Tractor Driver.
13.12.2019: The petitioner was called by the office of the Chief Conservator of Forest Investigation, Evaluation, Karnal, Division to appear for the Tractor Driver test on 16.12.2019.
16.12.2019: The petitioner appeared in the Tractor Driver test and successfully cleared the test.
18.12.2019: In the meantime, the Department had invited options for promotion to the post of Clerk. Although the petitioner had initially submitted an option, he subsequently submitted a written request on 18.12.2019 for withdrawal of the said option, specifically stating that he was interested in promotion as Tractor Driver.
20.12.2019: The petitioner was promoted as Clerk and posted in Sirsa Forest Division. The petitioner had already requested withdrawal of his option on 18.12.2019 and did not desire the Clerk promotion.
15.01.2020: The petitioner submitted another detailed representation dated 15.01.2020 (Annexure P-3) to the Principal Chief Forests Conservator, Haryana, reiterating that he had not been considered when juniors were promoted as Tractor Drivers, that his record had not been placed before the DPC, and that he had subsequently passed Tractor Driver test.
14.02.2020: The petitioner again submitted a representation dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure P-4) requesting consideration of his claim for promotion as Tractor Driver and the benefit of his successful driving test.
28.02.2020: The impugned communication dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-5) was issued whereby the petitioner's request dated 18.12.2019 for withdrawal of his option for promotion as Clerk was rejected on the ground that an option once given could not be changed.
03.03.2020: The petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-6) to the Range Forest Officer, Tohana, explaining that he did not want to join as Clerk and that his claim for promotion as Tractor Driver was already pending. He requested that he may not be relieved from his existing post until his pending claim was considered.
06.03.2020: The Forest Division Officer, Fatehabad issued the impugned order dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure P-7) directing the petitioner to immediately report/join as Clerk at office of Divisional Forest Officer, Sirsa.
Hence, the present Writ Petition.
It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed as Peon on 18.07.2014; whereas his juniors were appointed as Chowkidars on 21.07.2014. It is submitted that both the posts are Group-D post. Despite being senior to them, the petitioner was not considered when they were promoted as Tractor Drivers vide order dated 24.05.2018. The respondents proceeded on the erroneous premise that there was no eligible Class-IV employee in the Fatehabad Division for promotion as Tractor Driver, without considering the petitioner's service record and eligibility. The petitioner specifically pleaded that his record was never called for or placed before the Department. The petitioner repeatedly approached the competent authorities on 15.02.2019, 03.07.2019, 09.09.2019, 06.12.2019, 15.01.2020 and 14.02.2020, requesting consideration of his claim for promotion as Tractor Driver, but his claim was not decided in a fair and meaningful manner. The petitioner was subsequently called for the Tractor Driver test and, on 16.12.2019, successfully cleared the said test. The petitioner had specifically expressed his desire to be promoted as Tractor Driver and had submitted a request dated 18.12.2019 withdrawing his option for promotion as Clerk. The said request was made before the petitioner was compelled to join as Clerk and ought to have been considered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned communication dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-5) mechanically rejects the petitioner's request on the ground that an option once given cannot be changed, without considering that the petitioner had already been repeatedly pursuing his claim for promotion as Tractor Driver and had expressly requested withdrawal of the Clerk option.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not seeking any undue advantage but was seeking consideration for the same promotional avenue which had already been extended to his juniors. The impugned order dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure P-7) directing the petitioner to immediately join as Clerk has been passed without first deciding his substantive and pending grievance regarding promotion as Tractor Driver.
He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Tractor Driver from the date his juniors were promoted w.e.f. 24.05.2018 and all consequential benefits be released to the petitioner.
Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner does not possess necessary qualification for promotion to the post of Tractor Driver. Moreover, admittedly, petitioner has himself appeared in the clerical examination and has even opted for appointment as Clerk. Subsequently, petitioner has changed his mind and now wants to be appointed as Tractor Driver. However, given the admitted fact that petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification as stipulated under the Rules, petitioner is not eligible to be appointed.
It is further submitted that contention on behalf of the petitioner that persons similarly situated as the petitioner have been appointed as Tractor Driver, is untenable as no details of the said persons are forthcoming. Moreover, petitioner cannot claim negative parity.
In support, learned counsel for the State relies upon a judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 5942 of 2023 titled as Himakshi vs. Rahul Verma and others, decided on 20.04.2026; and Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 404.
He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.
Perusal of the record of the case shows that promotion to the post of Tractor Driver is governed by the Haryana State Forest Department, (Group C) Miscellaneous Section Service (Amendment) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2015’) notified on 26.05.2015 (Annexure R-1), as per which, for appointment to the post of Tractor Driver by promotion, following qualifications/eligibility conditions are to be fulfilled:-
16 Tractor (i) Matric; By promotion:-Driver (ii) should have valid (i) Matric; tractor driving (ii) should have a licence, at least valid tractor driving three years old; licence, at least (iii) should have three years old; passed the driving (iii) three years test, conducted by experience as a the Haryana Staff Cleaner; Selection (iv) should have Commission; passed the driving (iv) should not be test, conducted by colour blind; the department;
Hindi/Sanskrit (v) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard upto Matric standard or higher education; or higher education;
should not be colour blind;
should not be more than fifty years of age;
Admittedly, petitioner does not possess 3 years’ experience as a Cleaner to make him eligible for promotion as Tractor Driver. On this short ground itself, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Even otherwise, it is undisputed that petitioner participated in and cleared the clerical examination; whereafter, petitioner has exercised his option for promotion to the post of Clerk vide letter dated 13.09.2019. Clearly therefore, petitioner wanted to be promoted as Clerk, and he has also cleared the test for promotion as Clerk. As such, petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing of the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, promotion order dated 20.12.2019 was issued to the petitioner and he was given posting at Divisional Forest Office, Sirsa. However, in the meantime, petitioner had a change of mind and made a representation that he does not want to be promoted as Clerk, and he may be promoted as Tractor Driver.
Needless to say, said request of the petitioner cannot be considered as petitioner is not eligible for promotion as Tractor Driver as admittedly, he does not fulfil requisite qualification/eligibility criteria as he did not possess 3 years’ experience as Cleaner. Even otherwise, petitioner had himself opted for promotion as Clerk, and he cannot be permitted to change options back and forth.
Last contention on behalf of the petitioner that persons similar to the petitioner or juniors to the petitioner have been appointed as Tractor Driver, is misconceived as admittedly, petitioner does not possess the mandatory qualification/eligibility criteria.
Further, it is established position in law that a candidate who does not possess the requisite qualification has no right to appointment. Moreover, this Court cannot interfere/meddle with the qualifications as prescribed.
In this regard, reference is made to the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 5942 of 2023 titled as Himakshi vs. Rahul Verma and others, decided on 20.04.2026 relied upon by learned counsel for the State, the relevant extract of which reads as under: -
“48.In the present case, the defect is not merely procedural or incidental, but goes to the root of eligibility itself. The selected candidate, i.e., the appellant did not fulfil the essential qualification of "at least five years' work experience in computer manufacturing/maintenance" as on the relevant date. Such experience. is of a specialised nature and external to the post in question, which Couldn't have been acquired by a candidate after serving as a Computer Hardware Engineer. At the same time, the plea taken by the unsuccessful candidate has been accepted in the Letters Patent Appeal, though consideration for his appointment was not allowed. Thus, we can presume from the chart referred above in paragraph 32 of this Judgment, wherein the Committee has not specified the nature of experience possessed by the candidates even though it was deficient. Therefore, in such a scenario, the qualification of five years' experience which is within the minimum qualification, must be understood in its true sense to mean that the candidates ought to possess prior hands-on exposure in the field of computer manufacturing/maintenance in a company of repute. The experience in service on the said post could not be substituted by the experience required at the threshold.”
I draw support from judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 153; wherein it is held that: -
“A. Service Law – Appointment - Illegality – Lack of essential qualifications - Held, illegality cannot be cured - Only irregularity can be cured- Appellant appointed as teacher without BEd degree from a recognised university, as provided in rules framed under an Act - Held, his initial appointment itself was a nullity - Illegality could not be cured by allowing him to obtain a valid degree - An appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law -U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (5 of 1982) – S. 16 - U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 - R. 3 - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (2 of 1921), Ss. 16-E and 16-C(3).
B. Service Law - Recruitment process – Eligibility conditions -Experience - Lack of - Held, cannot be cured post appointment.
F. Constitution of India - Arts. 32 and 227-Writs- Mandamus-Held, can be sought when there is a right in an individual and corresponding duty on the State agency - Appellant who did not possess valid BEd degree, held, had no right to appointment and therefore could not seek mandamus.”
In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 404, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
“A. Service Law - Recruitment Process - Eligibility criteria/conditions - Necessity of possessing statutorily/advertisement-prescribed qualifications - Possessing of higher qualifications than stipulated for post- Equivalence of qualifications - Scope of judicial interference.”
The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under: -
“26.We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. in the subsequent decision in Anita. The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is not part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench¹ of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.
27.While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. turned.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said factual and legal position. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.