R.K. Tiwari vs State of MP and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 23/10/2010 by which the respondents/authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Forest Guard conducted for the purpose of appointing the daily wage labour working in the Forest Department. It is submitted that the respondents/authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that he has obtained the Higher Secondary qualification from the State of U.P. whereas the rule does not lay down any such disqualification.

The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 23/10/2010 on the ground that the Divisional Forest Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioner without taking into consideration the order dated 14/12/2009 wherein it has clearly been held that after amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Class-3 (Non-Ministerial) Forest Services Recruitment Rules 2000, the petitioner is also entitled to the aforesaid post.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

From a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the respondents/authorities have considered the aforesaid aspects and have recorded a finding to the effect that the amendment in Schedule 3 of the aforesaid Rules of 2000 was notified vide notification dated 22/05/2009 whereas the procedure for appointment of Forest Guard in the case of the petitioner was initiated by the respondents/authorities on 20/08/2008 on which date the advertisement was issued and therefore, as the recruitment procedure and the proceedings had already been initiated in the year 2008, subsequent amendment in the illegibility qualification would not apply to the already initiated recruitment proceedings. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

Quite apart from the above, it is clear that the recruitment proceedings were initiated in the year 2008 and were completed thereafter and the representation and objection of the petitioner was decided by the respondents/ authorities on 23/10/2010 but the petitioner was sitting over the matter and has filed the present petition in the year 2013 without giving any explanation for delay and laches on his part in filling the present petition.

I am also of the considered opinion that in view of the aforesaid delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Another Vs. K. Thangappan and Another, , New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and Others, and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar, the claim of parity made by the petitioner with one Shri Mahesh Pal Singh Chouhan who had immediately approached this curt in the year 2008, is misplaced and misconceived. The petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed.