Dismissed

Devendra Singh Bhati and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC28 Apr 2015CW/9694/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 29 proviso (3), which determines inter-se seniority of directly recruited Rangers Grade-I based on training marks. The Division Bench distinguished prior precedents, holding that since training involves specialized expertise distinct from initial selection, the rule is just and rational.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; proviso (3) to Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 upheld as just, rational, and constitutionally valid.

Devendra Singh Bhati and Ors. Vs State and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

(1)D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9694/2013 (Devendra Singh Bhati & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

¶5

(2)D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2539/2009 (Tarun Mehra & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶6

(3)D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9695/2013 (Gautam Raj Mehta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

¶7

Date of Order :: 28^th April, 2015

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶10

Mr. Harish Purohit] Dr. Nupur Bhati ] for the petitioners. Mr. P.R.Singh, Additional Advocate General. Mr. Narpat Singh ] Mr. Sunil Beniwal] for the respondent.

¶11

BY THE COURT :

¶12

REPORTABLE

¶13

By these petitions for writ the petitioners have challenged constitutional validity of proviso (3) to Rule 29 of the Rajashan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1963') that pertains to determination of inter se seniority of persons appointed to the posts of Rangers Grade-I by direct recruitment through one and same selection. As per the proviso impugned the seniority inter se of persons appointed to the posts of Rangers Grade-I by direct recruitment on the basis of one and same selection shall be determined with reference to order of merit as disclosed by

¶14

-2-

¶15

marks obtained at the Forest Rangers College. The provision impugned reads as under:-

¶16

“29. “Seniority :- “Seniority of persons appointed to the lowest post of the Service or lowest categories of posts in each of the Group/Section of the Service, as the case may be, shall be determined from the date of confirmation of such persons to the said post but in respect of persons appointed by promotion to other higher categories of posts in each of the Group/Section in the Service, as the case may be, shall be determined from the date of their regular selection to such posts.”

Provided--

(1).....

(2).....

(3)that the seniority inter se of persons appointed to posts of Rangers Grade I by direct recruitment on the basis of one and the same selection, shall be determined with reference to order of merit as disclosed by marks obtained at the Forest Rangers College;

¶21

(3-A)..... (4)..... (5)..... (6)..... (7).....”

¶22

The facts necessary to understand and adjudicate the issue involved are as follows :-

¶23

The Governor of Rajasthan while exercising powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India enacted the Rules of 1963 to regulate recruitment to the posts in and the conditions of service of persons

¶24

-3-

¶25

appointed to the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service. As per the Rules of 1963 recruitment to the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service shall be made either by direct recruitment or by way of promotion as per the procedure given under the Rules of 1963. The appointing authority as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1963, on 1^st of April every year, is required to determine the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. The vacancies so determined are to be filled-in in accordance with their allocation for direct recruitment and the promotion quota.

¶26

Part-VI of the Rules of 1963 pertains to the procedure for appointment to service through direct recruitment. According to Rule 20 of the Rules of 1963 the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') is required to conduct a competitive examination for making recruitment to the posts of Rangers Grade-I. The eligibility to participate in the competitive examination aforesaid is that the candidate must possess Bachelor's Degree in Science with atleast one of the subjects viz. Botany, Chemistry, Geology, Mathematics, Physics and Zoology or alternatively a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture or in Engineering of any University established by an Act of the Central or of the State Legislature in India or any other educational Institution by an Act of Parliament or declared to be deemed as a University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or an equivalent Degree from any foreign University recognised by the Government. The competitive examination shall be as per syllabus prescribed in Schedule-II appended with the Rules of 1963. The

¶27

-4-

¶28

competitive examination also includes a personality and viva voce examination i.e. to be faced by the candidates who have obtained a minimum of 35% marks in each of the compulsory subjects and a minimum of 40% marks in the aggregate in written test.

¶29

After holding competitive examination the Commission is required to prepare a list of candidates arranged in order of merit on basis of the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. The Commission shall then recommend to the Chief Conservator of Forests the candidates in order of merit for sending them to avail necessary training. The appointing authority then shall select candidates in order of merit and send them to undergo the Ranger course as per Rule 20 of the Rules of 1963. The candidates so selected are termed as 'cadets' in the Rules of 1963. A cadet sent for training is required to obtain honors or the higher standard certificates from the Forest Rangers College managed by the Director Forest Education, Forest Research Institute and College or any other institute as may be determined by the Government. During the course of training, as per Rule 20 of the Rules of 1963, a candidate shall be subject to the Rules and regulations of Forest Rangers College or any other institution referred above.

¶30

To regulate training of the Rangers Grade-I the Central Government after consultation with the States concerned framed the “Entrance and Training Rules for Forest Range Officers” (hereinafter referred to as 'the training Rules'). According to these Rules there shall be

¶31

-5-

¶32

two categories of candidates viz. (i) the candidates sponsored by the State/Union Territory, and (ii) the candidates sponsored by a Foreign Country. The selection of a candidate is required to be made by the concerned sponsoring authority. In the case in hand sponsoring authority is the appointing authority under the Rules of 1963.

¶33

The duration of the training is of 18 months consisting of two phases. In first phase the subjects of General Botany/Mathematics, Application of Modern Tools and Technology, Silviculture-I, Silviculture-II, Forest Resource Assessment, Forest Survey, Forest Engineering, Adverse Influences on Forests, Forest Utilization-I are to be taught. In second phase the subjects required to be taught to the cadets are Forest Policy and Law, Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Forest Utilization-II, Forest Resources Management, Natural Resource Management, Forest Economics, Biodiversity Conservation and Management, Joint Forest Management, Rural and Tribal Development, Human Resources Development and Management and Forest Accounts and Office Procedures. In addition to the subjects enumerated above a cadet is also required to participate in study tours and field exercises decided by the Principal of the College/School/Institute. The study tours will cover the practical aspect of training and the field exercises includes road alignment, engineering, working plan and ecological census techniques. Beside the above a training of weapons, motor mechanics and first aid is also required to be imparted to the cadets.

¶34

-6-

¶35

The cadets are also required to undergo two examinations each held during first and second phase as per Schedule of examination decided by the Principal of the School/College/Institute. At the end of second phase each officer trainee is also required to face a viva before a panel of experts, who shall evaluate his knowledge. At the end of course a list shall be prepared showing final order of merit based on the marks obtained in the examination and on assessment as per provisions of the training Rules. It is also important to notice that no officer trainee whose attendance at the College falls below 80% shall be permitted to appear in examination and if he/she misses more than 10% of any tour shall have to repeat the missed portion, unless exempted by the Principal. Upon failing upto three subjects, the trainee is required to appear in supplementary examination(s) in the paper(s) he/she has failed. If a trainee fails in more than three subjects or again in supplementary examination even in one subject, he/she is required to repeat the full academic year course. A cadet selected under the Rules of 1963 is to be posted as Ranger Grade-I after successful completion of the training as per training Rules.

¶36

Some members of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service recruited as Rangers Grade-I by way of filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.589/1994, Yogesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., approached this Court before its Jaipur Bench to treat them in service from the date they were selected and sent for necessary training for appointment as Rangers Grade-I. Suffice to mention that the respondent State during the period of training paid fixed

¶37

-7-

¶38

stipend and the period of training was not treated as a part of their service. The writ petition aforesaid came to be accepted by learned Single Bench on 22.5.1998, reported in 1998(3) WLC 551. Learned Single Bench after examining the entire scheme of the Rules of 1963 observed and held as under :-

¶39

“It is clear that the petitioners were selected by the RPSC for the recruitment to the post of Ranger Grade I. If after the selection the government has thought it fit to send the petitioners for training and pay for such training as well, in my opinion, the petitioners do get a right to be considered in service from the date they are selected and after completing the training they are appointed. However, this shall be applicable only to those candidates/ petitioners who complete their training successfully and are ultimately appointed against the jobs. In case a candidate is not able to complete the training successfully and as a consequence is not offered the job, such failed candidate cannot claim to be 'in service' for any consequence. Similar were the provisions in regard to the recruitment to Assistant Forest Conservators, however, modifications are made in the rules applicable to them i.e. Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962. The Rules of 1963 are applicable to the subordinate officers and Ranger Grade I is the highest post in the service under the Rules of 1963 whereas Rules of 1962 are applicable to the officers and Assistant Conservator of Forest is the lowest service Cadre post. Training in both the cases are the same in the colleges. In the case of the officers who fall under the Rules of 1962, the Government has already considered the training period to be 'in service' whereas in the case of the petitioners who fall under the Rules of 1963, the training

¶40

-8-

¶41

period is not being considered as 'in-service'. In my opinion, though there is no strict implications or involvement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as both the categories are governed by different sets of rules but if the same training period in one set of rules applicable to the candidates of 1962 Rules has been treated to be 'in-service', there is no reason why similar treatment should not be awarded to the candidates falling under the Rules of 1963. Even otherwise as I have discussed above, a complete recruitment procedure is adopted after holding the examination and interview and viva voce test and after having been so selected, the selectee is sent for training in regard to the Ranger Grade I, he is paid during the training. He is under the disciplinary control of the authorites under the Rules of 1963. Rules of 1963 or any other disciplinary rules can be made applicable to a person who is 'in service' and as such the contention of the petitioner does have merit to say that the training period once completed successfully and having been offered the jobs, should be considered as the period spent 'inservice' and thus all the writ petitions are to be allowed with the direction that the petitioners or the candidates who had been selected in response to the advertisement issued for the recruitment of category Ranger Grade I and sent to the training colleges and on having qualified the training successful and having been posted in the jobs as Ranger Grade I are entitled to the consideration of the period spent in training as period spent 'in-service' and that period shall be counted for all purposes i.e. seniority, increments, promotions etc.

¶42

It is, therefore, held that the period spent during training after being regularly selected by the RPSC shall be treated as period 'in-service' and all consequential benefits shall be allowable

¶43

-9-

¶44

to the petitioners i.e. of fixing of salary, increments etc. but the petitioner shall not be allowed any arrears of salary in this regard for the reason that they had accepted the offer voluntarily, the stipend being paid to them during the period of training and also for the reason that the counsel for the petitioners have no objection if there pay is fixed but no arrears of salary is paid.”

¶45

The judgment given by learned Single Bench came to be affirmed on rejection of DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.903/1998, State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Yogesh Sharma & Ors., by a Division Bench of this Court under the judgment dated 22.11.2007. The Division Bench while affirming the view taken by learned Single Bench held as under :-

¶46

“Having heard the rival submissions we notice that the respondents were selected by the RPSC on the post of Ranger Grade-I, they were sent for training, and they were paid for training period as well. Learned Single Judge after having considered the relevant statutory rules indicated that since the rights of respondents were determined for the first time and the respondents had accepted stipend/salary during training period, the respondents were entitled to have fixed their pay in the scale as was mentioned in the advertisement or as per the revision of pay scale if any. We see no infirmity in the impugned order.”

¶47

The grievance of the petitioners now survives and agitated in the instant petition is that though the period spent in training has been treated as part of service, but that has not been taken into consideration to determine

¶48

-10-

¶49

seniority among the direct recruits in service. According to the petitioners they were selected for appointment as Ranger Grade-I by qualifying a competitive examination and they were sent to training in order of merit, therefore, the merit of the competitive examination is a criteria reasonable to determine their seniority. It is asserted that the training is a post recruitment incident, therefore, merit of that is not a criteria reasonable to reckon seniority. By referring the findings arrived by learned Single Bench in the case of Yogesh Sharma (supra) it is stated that the period spent in training is required to be counted for all purposes including seniority, increments, promotions etc. and further that the determination of seniority on basis of the merit of training course shall not only deprive the directly recruited meritorious Rangers Grade-I from the service period spent on training but shall also make the select lists prepared in order of merit as per Rule 23 read with Rule 20(g) of the Rules of 1963 meaningless. In view of the law laid down in the case of Yogesh Sharma (supra) the petitioners are “in-service” since the date of their selection and that period cannot be ignored for determination of seniority list, hence, the proviso (3) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1963 which provides for determination of seniority as per merit awarded during the course of training is running contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case aforesaid.

¶50

It is also urged that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not from

¶51

-11-

¶52

any other date or criteria. The argument advanced is supported with the aid of the judgment given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607. Reliance is also placed by learned counsel upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. J.L.Sharma and another, reported in (1998)1 SCC 727, holding therein that the term “in service” cannot be interpreted to the limited extent to give pay only. Hon'ble the Apex Court held that the training period for direct recruits must be counted for determining the seniority provided they have been absorbed as an officer of Class-II Forest Service after successfully completing the training.

¶53

Per contra, as per the respondents no direction at all was given by this Court in the case of Yogesh Sharma (supra) for determining seniority among the direct recruits, selected as a consequence to one selection by taking into consideration the period spent on training and rightly so in light of the proviso (3) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1963. It is stated that the criteria adopted for determination of seniority among the direct recruits with reference to order of merit as disclosed by marks obtained at the Forest Rangers College is quite just and reasonable for the reason that during the course of training a cadet acquires expert knowledge about the forest and the services required to be discharged by such cadet in Department of Forest. According to learned counsels for the respondents the process of selection, to the extent it is conducted by the Commission, is based on the knowledge of general and

¶54

-12-

¶55

usual subjects which are not concerned with the expert knowledge of forest and its needs. A cadet during the course of training acquires vast theoretical as well as practical knowledge in relation to the forest and the merit of that is much relevant for the service i.e. to be discharged by a Ranger Grade-I. The stand taken by the respondents while responding contents of the writ petition deserves to be quoted and i.e. as under :-

¶56

“That it is relevant to mention here that before appointment on the post of Ranger Grade I, a candidate who is selected on the post of Ranger (i.e. Forest Officer) either through RPSC or promotion/ appointment amongst in service candidates or otherwise, has to undergo two years training course at the prescribed Forest Ranger/s College. During the course of training, a Ranger (i.e. Forest Officer) is required to acquire thorough study and specialization in the subjects related to forest. Suffice it to say that a Ranger has to study and pass the subject of forestry, which includes Silviculture, Working plan, Forest Mensuration, Forest Management, Silviculture System, Silviculture of Indian Trees, Wild Life Management, Forest Protection, Soil Conservation and geology and Social Sciences, Similarly subject Forest Engineering includes Forest Engineering and Forest Survey. The subject Forest Accounts, Policy and Law includes Forest Accounts and GFAR, Office Management, Indian Forest Act 1972, Wild Live (Protection) Act, 1972 Forest conservation Act 1980 and Forest Policy of 1894, 1953 and 1988. All the above subjects are related to forest.

¶57

That on completion of 2 years training on the post of Ranger, written examinations of the afore said subjects & field exercise are conducted by the forest Ranger College and as per the

¶58

-13-

¶59

performance of the candidate he/ she is assigned marks. According to the marks obtained by the candidates a merit list is prepared. It is further relevant to mention here that if any candidate fails to obtain the qualifying marks in the said training course & examination then he is not entitled for appointment on the post of Ranger (i.e. Forest officer). The object and nexus sought to be achieved by the department is to give the best forest officers, who studied thoroughly all subject of forestry and obtained excellent marks in the examination. With this pious intention & object the legislature enacted The Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules 1963 (for short Rules 1963) which govern the service conditions viz seniority, promotion etc of the candidates including the Ranger Grade I.”

¶60

Heard learned counsels.

¶61

The main argument advanced by learned counsels for the petitioners is that in the case of Yogesh Sharma (supra) this Court has already taken a view that the period spent on training shall be treated as a part of “in service”, hence that cannot be confined only for the purpose of grant of pay scales and other monetary and administrative benefits but is required to be extended for determination of seniority too. It is submitted that in the case of State of H.P. v. J.L.Sharma & Anr. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has already considered the term “In-service” and held that it is not only for the purpose of awarding pay but also for the determination of seniority. The full effect is required to be given to the term aforesaid and irresistible conclusion of that is for taking into consideration the period spent on training for determination of seniority. The view aforesaid has further

¶62

-14-

¶63

been substantiated by placing reliance upon the judgment given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others (supra).

¶64

So far as the judgments cited by learned counsels for the petitioners are concerned, we are of considered opinion that the same do not extend any help to the cause agitated.

¶65

In Yogesh Sharma (supra) all the direct recruits irrespective of their merit in competitive examination or in training were before the Court claiming their rights for the period spent on training. A view was taken by a Single Bench of this Court that the period spent while undergoing training by the members of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service created under the Rules of 1963 is also required to be treated as a part of service as that is treated for the members of Rajasthan Forest Service created under the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962. In this case the Court was examining the case of direct recruits as a single class of employees, but in the instant matter the issue before us is a dispute between two sub classes of the direct recruits. Under the Rules of 1963, as already stated, procedure for direct recruitment is given under Part-VI, according to which the Commission initiates process of selection by inviting applications to face competitive examination for recruitment to the post of Ranger Grade-I. The Commission after holding written examination conducts a personality and viva voce examination for the qualified candidates who obtain minimum

¶66

-15-

¶67

35% marks in each of the compulsory subjects and minimum 40% marks in aggregate. The Commission after conducting personality and viva voce examination prepares a list of candidates arranged in order of merit and forward it to the Chief Conservator of Forests with a recommendation to send the selected incumbents for training. Suffice to mention here that the recommendation made by the Commission as per Rule 20(g) of the Rules of 1963 is for sending the selected incumbents for training and not for appointment or posting as Ranger Grade-I. The appointing authority after receiving the list from the Commission prepares a select list in order of merit in accordance with Rule 23 of the Rules of 1963 to send the persons placed in the select list for preliminary training as per Rule 20(h)(i)(1). The persons placed in select list then are required to undergo Ranger Course for obtaining honors or the higher standard certificates from the Forest Rangers College managed by the Director Forest Education, Forest Research Institute and College or any other institute as may be determined by the Government as per Rule 20(h)(i)(2) of the Rules of 1963. Pertinent to notice here that the persons placed under select list till successful completion of the training are designated as “Cadets” and as per Rule 2(b) of the Rules of 1963 “Cadet” means a person sponsored by the Government for training in the Rangers course conducted by the President; Forest Research Institute and College, Dehradun, under the provision of the Rules aforesaid. In view of the scheme of the Rules of 1963 a person selected for recruitment as Ranger Grade-I remains a cadet till successful completion of training. In view of the judgment given by this Court in the case of Yogesh Sharma (supra) such cadet is a member of

¶68

-16-

¶69

Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service and he is entitled for all benefits attached thereto. While undergoing training, such a “cadet” though becomes a member of service but not a Ranger Grade-I. At the cost of repetition we deem it appropriate to state that before successful completion of training no cadet can be appointed and posted as Ranger Grade-I.

¶70

In State of H.P. v. J.L.Sharma & Anr. (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court held that the persons treated “in service” are entitled to get the period spent on training considered for reckoning seniority. The view aforesaid was taken in light of a rule existing in Himachal Pradesh Forest Service (Class-II) Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service Rules, 1966. The Rule considered by the Apex Court in the case aforesaid in quite unambiguous terms provides that “the candidates selected for training at Forest Research Institute and Colleges, Dehradun or at any other place, shall while undergoing the training be treated as 'in-service' candidates from the date of joining the Institute. During the period of training, the candidates shall receive pay in the lowest stage of the pay scale of HPFC-II applicable to the service and allowances admissible thereon during the first year and at the second stage of that scale during the second year : provided that the second increment shall be granted only when a direct recruit has passed the prescribed examination (s) from the institute/college concerned”. The Apex Court by taking into consideration the Rule aforesaid held that once a person has been statutorily treated “in-service” then he is part of service for all purposes including for

¶71

-17-

¶72

determination of seniority. In the Rules of 1963 no such provision exists, hence, the law laid down in the case aforesaid cannot be applied in present controversy.

¶73

The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) is also not applicable in the present controversy in view of the fact that in the case aforesaid Hon'ble Court was examining the issue agitated by direct recruits for determination of their seniority who were selected and appointed to service after facing a complete process of selection under the relevant Rules. The Apex Court held that the appointment made by following the procedure given under the Rules is a substantive one and that demands for reckoning seniority from the date of appointment. In the case in hand the State is already determining seniority of the direct recruits from the date of their initial appointment and the issue is to settle the seniority of the persons recruited under the same process of selection. Beside the above, as per the Rules of 1963 the process of appointment as Ranger Grade-I is in two steps. The first step is selection as a “cadet” and the second step is appointment as Ranger Grade-I after undergoing requisite training. The petitioners want to get benefit of seniority merely on the count of their selection as cadet ignoring the second step i.e. of successful completion of requisite training. The merit on which petitioners are relying is only for the purpose of selection as a cadet. Pertinent to notice that the selection of a person as a cadet is based on a competitive examination pertaining to usual subjects

¶74

-18-

¶75

available with the Science Graduates, whereas during the course of training the selected cadets are required to undergo a rigorous training relating to subjects pertaining to forestry. It shall be appropriate to notice that a Ranger Grade-I is an officer who works for protection and scientific management of forest. He is responsible to take care of all the issues pertaining to a forest range relating to wild life, flora, environment etc. He is required to safeguard the forest resources and products. A Ranger Grade-I happens to be an executive in-charge of the forest range within his jurisdiction, as such, he is having several administrative responsibilities too. Looking to special and skilled nature of job and duties the Ranger Grade-I is required to have adequate training in forestry and allied subjects. The Government of India, thus, has prescribed a complete course of training extending to the period of 18 months which includes several subjects relating to forestry, agriculture etc. Beside the theoretical training in the relevant subject, a cadet is also required to qualify physical agility test to establish his/her physical fitness and mental alertness to work in forest in all seasons and all weather conditions. A Ranger mostly discharge his duties in remote areas with minimum supervisory aid or assistance, as such he must possess skill to meet every possible adverse circumstance. A bare look at the scheme of training for Rangers Grade-I, makes it clear that the training is quite exhaustive and rigorous. During the course of training the subjects taught to the trainees are General Botany/ Mathematics, Application of Modern Tools and Technology, Silviculture-I, Silviculture-II, Forest Resource

¶76

-19-

¶77

Assessment, Forest Survey, Forest Engineering, Adverse Influences on Forests, Forest Utilization Part-I and II, Forest Policy and Law, Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Forest Resources Management, Natural Resource Management, Forest Economics, Biodiversity Conservation and Management, Joint Forest Management, Rural and Tribal Development, Human Resources Development and Management and Forest Accounts and Office Procedures. In addition to the subjects enumerated above a cadet is also required to undergo study tours and field exercises. The study tours covers all practical aspects of training and the field exercises relates to road alignment, engineering, working plan and ecological census techniques. The training also includes operational knowledge of weapons, motor mechanics and medical first aid. The necessary details with regard to study tours and field exercises assessments, as per the scheme applicable, are that there shall be three study tours during first phase and two study tours during the second phase of training. The total number of days dedicated for tours shall be 145. Performance of a trainee during the study tour is required to be assessed on basis of tour examination, tour journal, quiz test, tour symposium, botanical collection etc. The assessment in respect of field exercises is required to be made by taking into consideration the exercise pertaining to nursery, plantation and cultural operation, mensuration, marking and logging, road alignment, engineering, working plan and ecological census techniques. The conduct of a cadet also remains under active screening during the course of training and that is assessed on basis of his participation in activities, discipline, interpersonal relations with

¶78

-20-

¶79

peers, interpersonal relations with faculty and participation in extra curricular activities. The training which is divided in two phases is followed by written examination, tour examination, field exercises and viva voce at the end of each phase.

¶80

The facts stated above indicate that a cadet selected by the Commission acquires all necessary expertise to become an officer of forest by undergoing training. The training institute also make assessment of the merit of a candidate on basis of a very scientific and well regulated criteria. No cadet without having such rigorous training can be appointed as Ranger Grade-I by way of direct recruitment. On the other hand, the merit as per recommendation list prepared by the Commission is based on the knowledge of the subjects which are to qualify by a candidate for his selection as cadet. These are subjects which are quite usual and not of much concern with expertise in forestry. It is the merit of training that indicates ability and efficacy of a candidate who is to serve State in its forest department by discharging difficult duties attached with the office of Ranger GradeI. The merit required cannot be assessed just on basis of the marks obtained in qualifying competitive examination conducted by the Commission to select cadets. The Rule impugned reflects an incentive to merit and also satisfies the object of having most meritorious persons on higher pedestal in the seniority among the recruits of same batch. In view of it, we are of considered opinion that the criteria given under proviso (3) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1963 is quite just, rational and in no manner inconsistent

¶81

-21-

¶82

with any provision of Part-III of the Constitution of India.

¶83

The writ petitions, thus, are bereft of merit, hence dismissed.

¶84

(JAISHREE THAKUR),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J.

¶85

kkm/ps.

Devendra Singh Bhati and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Singh Bhati and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Sharma Vs State and Ors.

Kuya Ram Vs State and Ors.

M/S. Phulad Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Vs State and Ors.

Adani Gas Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

State Vs Mehru and Anr.

Balwant Singh Vs State and Ors.