Gujarat High Court
Deputy Conservator Of Forests vs Hareshkumar Jethabhai Vanda on 27 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 529 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6760 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS & ORS.
Versus
HARESHKUMAR JETHABHAI VANDA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
BHOOMI M THAKORE(6237) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KETAN D SHAH(1356) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. HARSH K THAKAR(7172) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for Appellant Nos. 1 to 3, learned advocates Ms. Bhoomi M. Thakore and Mr. Harsh K. Thakar for respondent No. 2 and learned advocate Mr. Ketan D. Shah Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined for respondent No. 1.
2. This appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6760 of 2008.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to the "Rabari Community" and the forefathers of the petitioner are residents of the Gir, Barda and Alech Forest Areas. It is the case of the petitioner that the people belonging to the "Rabari Community" of the said area were declared as "Scheduled Tribes" vide notification of the Government of India issued in October, 1956.
4. The petitioner made an application in response to an advertisement issued by the respondents for the post of Forester in the Forest Department in the S.T. category. The petitioner was required to produce the caste certificate as proof of his belonging to the S.T. category post. It is the case Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined of the petitioner that he approached the respondent authorities for issuance of the caste certificate on 06.11.2007. However, the same was not issued by the concerned Mamlatdar, which was duly informed to the respondent authorities by the petitioner after clearing all the required tests for selection.
5. The petitioner was at serial number 2 in the merit list prepared by the respondents from the Junagadh Zone, and in the interview held on 24.04.2008 by the selection committee, the petitioner could not produce a caste certificate as the same was not issued to him because of the inaction on the part of the respondents - Mamlatdar at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, the petitioner was not selected and his candidature was rejected only for the reason of not producing the caste certificate of the S.T. category.
6. Petitioner, therefore, preferred the Special Civil Application No.6760 of 2008 with the prayer of restraining Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined the respondent No.1 from operating the select list prepared in pursuance of the advertisement for appointment on the post of Foresters in S.T. category. The learned Signal Judge passed the following order on 30.04.2008, which is as under:
"Rule returnable on 5.5.2008. It is not appropriate for the authority to have not decided the application of the petitioner wherein he claims the status of Scheduled Tribe. This may be borne in mind that the father and brother of the petitioner had already been categorized as Scheduled Tribes, his appointment is hanging fire but for the inaction of the authorities. The authorities are hereby directed to decide the application of the petitioner forthwith.
The authorities are also to see that the petitioner's appointment is pending for consideration before the authorities. An appropriate information may also be sent by learned AGP to the Forest Officers that if any appointment is made prior to the adjudication of the petitioner's caste status the same would be subject to the decision of this petition. Direct service is permitted."
7. The learned Single Judge, after considering the aforesaid orders and the facts of the case, has noted that after passing of the aforesaid order on 30.04.2008, the caste Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined certificate was issued to the petitioner on 09.05.2008. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was again selected in the next selection held in the year 2009 on the basis of such caste certificate in the S.T. category.
8. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has held as under:
"12. Immediately, thereafter, the caste certificate has been issued on 9.5.2008. It is unfortunate that for auch minor jobs of issuance of caste certificate, people have to approach the Court. The Government has not taken any action against the Mamlatdar or the persons responsible for non- issuance of the required certificate despite the fact that the application has remained pending with them for about five months. Not only the Mamlatdars, the selection committee is also equally responsible as they have ignored the instructions issued by the Government, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that in case of difficulty, an inquiry can be got conducted through the District Magistrate concerned. It will be relevant to note that on the basis of same certificate, the petitioner got appointment in subsequent selection which has taken place in 2009. Though four or five persons, who are juniors to the petitioner, have marched ahead of the petitioner because of rejection of his candidature in the selection held in the year 2008, yet, their appointments were subject to the decision of this writ petition.Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined
13. Learned AGP has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A.P. Laveti Giri, reported in (1995)4 SCC 32 (supra), however, the facts of this case are entirely different from case in hand where even State Government has to issue instructions after coming to know that Mamlatdaras are not issuing such caste certificates to genuine people.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is deemed to have been selected for the post of "Forester" of Junagadh Zone from 30.4.2008 in S.T. category, i.e. the date on which juniors to him have been selected. He will get notional benefits of seniority from this date. Necessary corrections shall be made in the seniority list. Rule is made absolute."
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the appellant submitted that from the facts it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not produce the caste certificate, though he was required to produce the same at the time of verification of the documents, and had categorically made a statement before the Selection Committee that he was not having any caste certificate in his name to show that he belongs to the S.T. category. It was therefore submitted that the respondents were justified Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined in not selecting the petitioner in the selection of 2008 in the S.T. category post.
10. It was further submitted that the petitioner had provided the certificate of SEBC category and not of S.T. category and therefore his selection was rightly rejected, and the learned Single Judge could not have given a direction in para 14 to grant a notional benefit to the petitioner of being selected in the select list of 2008 when admittedly the petitioner was selected in 2009. It was further submitted that though the petitioner has not worked from 2008, he could not have been given the notional benefit of seniority over his juniors who had already been selected in the selection process of 2008.
11. It was submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge, therefore, could not have given a preferential treatment to the petitioner by passing the impugned order granting notional benefit of seniority to the petitioner.
Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined
12. It was also pointed out that the interim order passed on 30.04.2008 would not lead to the passing of the final order granting notional benefit to the petitioner, as the petitioner admittedly submitted the caste certificate in the selection process of 2009 and the onus of verification of the caste of the petitioner could not have been shifted upon the respondent authorities as observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
13. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. K. D. Shah appearing for the respondent submitted that admittedly the petitioner belonged to the S.T. category, as even the caste certificates in the name of the father and brother of the petitioner were made available before the Selection Committee, but the same were not taken into consideration by the Selection Committee on the ground that there was no certificate of S.T. category in the name of the petitioner and therefore the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined
14. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the interim order dated 30.04.2008, has given a finding that only because of the interim order passed by this Court the respondents issued the caste certificate on 09.05.2008. It was pointed out that the certificate dated 09.05.2008 was never challenged by the respondent authority and on the basis of such certificate the petitioner was also selected in the selection process of 2009. It was therefore submitted that no interference may be made in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as the juniors who were appointed in the selection process of 2008 were subject to the outcome of the petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2008 immediately after his rejection by the Selection Committee only on the ground of non-supply of the caste certificate by the petitioner.
15. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to the S.T. category as Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined per the certificate dated 09.05.2008, which would relate back to the date of birth of the petitioner and not from the date of issuance of the certificate. Moreover, by the interim order passed in this petition by the learned Single Judge, the appointments made by the respondent authorities in the selection process of 2008 were made subject to the outcome of this petition, and it is categorically stated in the interim order that the authorities shall see that the appointment of the petitioner is pending before them, and any appointment to be made shall be subject to the adjudication of the case of the petitioner.
16. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the petition, has also taken into consideration this aspect and has deprecated the practice of the respondents for sitting tight over the matter for more than 5 months for issuance of the caste certificate, more particularly when the instructions issued by the Central Government which are relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner have been reproduced by the learned Single Judge as under: Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined "9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the Government Instructions O.M. No. 36011/5/88-Est. (SCT) dated -4-1988. These instructions are re-produced as under:
G.I. Dept. of Per and Trg., O.M. No. 36011/5/88 Est/ (SCT), dated -4-1988 "Subject: Verification of claims of S.C./S.T
1. The undersigned is directed to draw attention of the Ministry of Finance, etc., to the instructions contained in Chapter 13 of the Brochure on Reservation for S.C./S.T. in services (7th edition) wherein it has been clearly mentioned that where a candidate belonging to an S.C. or S.T. is unable to produce a certificate from any of the prescribed authorities, he may be appointed provisionally on the basis of whatever prima facie proof he is able to produce in support of his claim subject to his furnishing the prescribed certificate within a reasonable time or if there is genuine difficulty in his obtaining a certificate the appointing authority should itself verify his claim through the District Magistrate concerned. It has also been provided therein that the appointing authority should verify the caste status of an S.C./S.T. officer at the time of initial appointment and Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined promotion against by a vacancy reserved for Schedule Caste/Tribe.
2. Despite the clear instructions as mentioned above instances have come to the notice of this Department where of appointment S.C./S.T. candidates are withheld/delayed pending verification of their caste status. The instructions regarding verification of caste status at the time of initial appointment do not supersede instructions the prior regarding provisional appointment even when the candidate is unable to provide the certificate in the prescribed form. It is once again bought the notice of the Ministry of Finance, etc., that appointment of a candidate be belonging to S.C./S.T. should not be withheld/delayed pending the verification of caste status."
10. Perusal of the aforementioned instructions leaves no doubt that the persons seeking reservation for SC/ST category were finding it difficult to get required certificates from the concerned authorities. After these difficulties were brought to the notice of the Government, it issued these instructions. It was specifically mentioned in the instructions that in case of difficulty, the alternative evidence produced by the candidates should be taken into consideration. Still further, the authorities could verify from the concerned District Magistrates regarding caste of the candidates. It could be seen that the petitioner informed the interview committee regarding his inability to get the caste certificate in time. Despite his requests the Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/529/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined concerned committee, his candidature seems to have been rejected on the ground that he has not been able to produce the required certificate belonging to S.T. Category well within time.
Inability to produce the certificate was beyond the control of the petitioner as it was all because of the inaction on the part of respondents no. 2 and 3, who were Mamlatdars at the relevant time."
17. In view of the fact that the petitioner belongs to the S.T. category and was entitled to get appointment in the year 2008, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, particularly when his juniors have been appointed. The appeal, therefore, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) STANCY GOMES Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:24:04 IST 2025