AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.M. Mir, J.—The grievance of the petitioner is that he could have been appointed to the post of Forestor which was occupied by the
father of the petitioner, who died in harness. The petitioner, in terms of SRO 43 of 1994, has been appointed as a Forest Guard.
Rule 3 (SubRule 2) of this SRO empowers the Government, to appoint, at its discretion, a candidate to a higher post in the nongazetted cadre.
According to Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner could be appointed as Forestor under this provision. I have
taken note of this argument and also gone through the whole case. SRO 43 of 1994 emphatically lays down the power of the Government to
appoint a person on compassionate grounds under Rule 3. SubRule 2 lays down an exception to the general rule by investing discretionary power
with the Government to appoint a person on a higher post as well. Once the petitioner has been appointed as Forest Guard, it seems that powers
under Subrule 1 of Rule 3 have been exercised and not the option under SubRule 2.
This Court cannot ask the Government to exercise its discretion in a particular way; however, this has to be left to the administrative visdom of
the Government itself as is suggested by SubRule 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some recommendations have been made by respondent No. 3 in favour of the petitioner. It is
again for the General Administrative Department to consider those recommendations. This Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, in
terms of Art. 226, can come to the rescue of a person only when a right, fundamental or otherwise is violated. Therefore, I do not find any merit in
this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed; however, respondents may consider the recommendations made in favour of the petitioner and
pass appropriate orders in this regard.