Chattisgarh High Court
Rahul Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 September, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 3358 of 2021
1. Deepali Pandey D/o Rajesh Pandey Aged About 29 Years Studying
At Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, R/o Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur,
Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Dinesh Kumar Kondagurla S/o Ramlu Kondagurla Aged About 20
Years Studying At Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, R/o Village-
Nalampalli, Tehsil- Bhopattnam, District- Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Ashish Kumar Soni S/o Dr. Ashok Kumar Soni Aged About 28 Years
Studying At Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, R/o Namunakala
Ring Road, Near Karmel Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Saurabh Pandey S/o Rajesh Pandey Aged About 25 Years R/o
Bananak Chowk, Behind Holly Cross School, Tehsil And District
Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
5. Yognandni Karma D/o M.R. Karma Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward
No.7, Huduko Colony, Awarabhata, Tahsil And District- Dantewada,
Chhattisgarh.
6. Satyaprakash Kaushik S/o Shri Shirnandam Kaushik Aged About 28
Years R/o Village- Dhanra, Post- Keshkal, District- Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh.
7. Laxmikanti Panigarhi S/o Krirendra Panigarhi Aged About 24 Years
R/o Village- And Post- Asna, Naya Para, Tehsil- Bastar, District-
Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.
8. Riya Singh D/o Suresh Kumar Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o 112/d,
Res Colony, Tehsil- Chhindgarh, Tonpal, District-Sukma,
Chhattisgarh.
9. Gopal Dasar S/o Laxmi Swami Aged About 22 Years Gram - Phulkel,
Post- Pakela, Tehsil- Awapalli, District- Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
10. Bhavesh Tati S/o V.S. Tati Aged About 22 Years Quarter No. 72,
Surbhi Colony, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
11. Hitesh Bhaskar S/o Dhanraj Bhaskar Aged About 21 Years R/o
Sanjay Nagar, Ward No. 15, Block-Dantewada, District-Dantewada,
2
Chhattisgarh.
12. Manishankar S/o Sanjay Pandey Aged About 22 Years R/o Infront Of
L.I.C. Office, Kangoli Road, Dharampura, No. 1, Jagdalpur, District-
Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
13. Osh Kumar Gupta S/o Sunil Kumar Gupta Aged About 27 Years R/o
Devi Ganj Road, Behind Saheli Store, Ambikapur, District- Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
14. Damrudhar Kashyap S/o Narshing Kashyap Aged About 29 Years R/
o Village- Sarpanch Para, Mohlai, Bastar, Post- Kinjauli, District-
Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
15. Hemant Kumnar Kori S/o Kaushal Prasad Aged About 27 Years R/o
LIG-853, Deendayal Awas Colony, Mangla, Tehsil And District-
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
16. Bhanupriya Thakur D/o Hari Singh Thakur Aged About 32 Years R/o
Saket Colony, Near Assembly Church, District-Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgarh.
17. Lokeshwar Prasad S/o Rameshwar Prasad Aged About 32 Years R/o
Atalbihari Bajpai Ward No. 38, Dharampura, No. 1, Jagdalpur,
District-Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
18. Mahesh Kumar S/o Ashwani Aged About 28 Years R/o Gram Post-
Kurratola, Tehsil-Charama, District-Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
19. Suman Das D/o Rajendra Das Aged About 25 Years R/o Maa Durga
Chowk, Sadar Ward, Ward No.10, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
20. Amitesh Bhattarcharya S/o Sanjay Kumar Bhattarcharya Aged About
32 Years R/o Narayanpur, District-Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh.
21. Suman Bhaskar D/o Mahendra Singh Bhaskar Aged About 25 Years
R/o House No. 53, Patel Marg, Abhanpur, Narharpur, District-
Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
22. Vivek Jhadi S/o Purshottam Jhadi Aged About 25 Years R/o H.N. 114,
Main Road-Bacheri, Near T.C.I. Godown, Ward No. 1, Dantewada,
District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
23. Madhulika Pandey D/o Shri Ghanshyam Pandey Aged About 26
3
Years R/o Chote Aamanaal, Pujari Para, Mayank Kirana Store, Post-
Bhanpuri, District-Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
24. Chetan Singh Sinha S/o Harinandan Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o
Shiv Mandir, Chandrashekhar Azad Ward, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
25. Anjali Singh Gautam D/o Awdesh Singh Gautam Aged About 24
Years R/o Jail Road, IB Bunglow, Durga Chowk , Sadar Bazar,
Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
26. Reena D/o Shri Sindhu Aged About 28 Years R/o Pandri Pani- 2
Pamela Para, Post- Dingrapal, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
27. Bhagwati S/o Mahendra Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o H.N. 59,
Ward No. 5, Village-Ira, Post-Sonani, District-Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisagarh.
28. Kamesh S/o Aatam Das Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Bendridih,
Post-Pandadah, Tehsil-Khairagarh,District-Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
29. Tarun Puri S/o Shri Revaram Manipuri Aged About 30 Years R/o
Naya Para, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
30. Geetanji Painkra D/o Abbal Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Village
And Post-Chirga, Tahsil And Thana-Batauli, District- Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
31. Divya Kunjam D/o Mansingh Kunjam Aged About 26 Years R/o
Gram- Datkunda, Post-Lakhanpuri, Tehsil-Charama, District-Kanker,
Chhattisgarh,
32. Vaibhav Pandey S/o Vivek Pandey Aged About 25 Years R/o Shiv
Mandir, Ward No. 3, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
33. Meenakshi D/o Rikeshwar Aged About 25 Years R/o Post And
Village- Matnar, Block And Tahsil-Bakhawan, District-Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
34. Purnima Tandon D/o Mahendra Tandon Aged About 28 Years R/o
Behind F.C.I. Godown, Maharani, Ward, Kumarpara, Jagdalpur,
District-Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
35. Jilson James S/o James Methew Aged About 29 Years R/o Infront Of
4
Radio Station, Tokhapal, District-Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
36. Yugal Kumar S/o Rikeshwar Aged About 26 Years R/o H.No. 50,
Village And Post-Matnar, Tehsil-Bhakavan, District-Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
37. Tejaswani Mishra D/o S.C. Mishra Aged About 26 Years R/o 265/Ih,
Forest Colony, Bhelvopadar, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
38. Apratim Jha D/o Himanshu Shekhar Jha Aged About 33 Years R/o
Vijay Ward No. 2, Dr. K.K. Jha, Marg, Jagdalpur, District-Baster,
Chhattisgarh.
39. Alam Saay S/o Ram Partap Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Kunsi,
Post- Lolki, Tehsil- Pratappur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
40. Dhani Ram S/o Shridhar Aged About 30 Years R/o Gram Nimha,
Post- Jamdih, Thana- Udaypur, District-Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
41. Nitesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shiv Kumar Dewangan Aged About 32
Years R/o Anand Nagar, Junwani, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
42. Devendra Sharma S/o Kishore Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o Plot
No. 930/ 13, Near Rajdhani Rice, Bagrum Chowk, Dashpur, Uttar
Bastar, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
43. Ajay Banik S/o Shri Bhakul Banik Aged About 35 Years R/o Maharani
Ward No. 14, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
44. Saraswati D/o Chamra Ram Aged About 25 Years R/o Keshkal,
District-Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
45. Yogesh Kumar Nag S/o Sitaram Nag Aged About 26 Years R/o Gappi
Para, Hitwar, Post- Nakulnar, Tehsil- Kuakonda, District- Dantewada,
Chhattisgarh.
46. Nidhi Kujur D/o Eliyajar Kujur Aged About 25 Years R/o Ghurmund,
Gram Chittrakot, Post- Lhohandiguda, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
47. Kumari Akansha Pandey D/o Shri Anil Pandey Aged About 30 Years
R/o Abhanpur, Tehsil-Jagdalpur, District-Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
48. Anlish Kumar Markam S/o Shri Dasrath Ram Markam Aged About 26
Years R/o Gram-Chingli, Post-Komara, Tehsil-Baderajpur, District-
Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
5
49. Harish Chandra Darro S/o Ramchand Darro Aged About 33 Years R/
o Hum Kothi Para, Narayanpur, Block- Narayanpur, District-
Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh.
50. Priyanka Kashyap D/o Kamalkant Kashyap Aged About 26 Years R/o
Behind Bhunkar Sang, Santara Badi, Tehsil-Durg, District-Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
51. Taihzeeba Anjum D/o A.M. Khan Aged About 32 Years R/o W/o
Ashpaak Ur Rehman, H.No. 110/b, Ruabanda Centre, Bhilai Nagar,
Ward No. 65, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
52. Binda Raana D/o Sohan Raj Aged About 26 Years R/o Post- Bade
Dongar, Tehsil- Farasgaon, District-Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
53. Fagnu Ram S/o Asmaan Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Devgaon,
Tehsil-Farazgaon, District-Bastar Chhattisgarh.
54. Ranjita Nag D/o Buddhu Ram Nag Aged About 26 Years R/o Post-
Baniyagaon, Thana-Keshkal, District-Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
55. Sanjay Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o
Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
56. Ami Gautam D/o Ayodha Prasad Aged About 33 Years R/o Village-
Bunda, Post-Newra, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
57. Rahul Kumar Sahu S/o Jitendra Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o
Lormi, District-Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
58. Roshan Kumar Tandon S/o Tukaram Tandon Aged About 30 Years R/
o Sarangarh, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
59. Shailesh Kumar Yadav S/o Dinesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 29
Years Ambikapur, District-Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
60. Chandresh Taang S/o Devendra Taang Aged About 32 Years R/o
Raigarh, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
61. Kamlesh S/o Lalaram Aged About 28 Years Gram- Raveli, District-
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
62. Rakesh Kumar Shrivas S/o Panch Ram Shrivas Aged About 31 Years
R/o Indira Vihar, Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
6
63. Ajay Kumar Kawar S/o Jodhi Ram Kaawar Aged About 34 Years R/o
Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.
64. Kiran Tiwari D/o Prayag Tiwari Aged About 32 Years R/o Village-
Uriya, Tehsil-Mainpath, Narmadapur, Sarguja, District- Sarguja,
Chhattisgarh.
65. Sangeeta D/o Kaushal Kumar Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 16,
School Para, Bhagwanpur, Khurd, Ambikapur, District-Surajpur
Chhattisgarh.
66. Aarti Singh S/o Vijendra Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No, 5 ,
Bhandarpar, Gram- Podi, Tehsil- Bachra, District- Koriya,
Chhattisgarh.
67. Md. Irshad Alam S/o Md. Abdul Rasheed Aged About 30 Years R/o
H.N.39, Near Government School, Village-Jori, Post-Babooli, Tehsil-
Lundra, District-Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
68. Kaitana Pathak D/o Rajesh Pathak Aged About 30 Years R/o H.N.
234/02, Manjhari Para, Near Water Park, Sargaon, Sakalo, District-
Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
69. Harish Chandra Rajwade S/o Durga Prasad Rajwade Aged About 30
Years R/o Gram- Kunj Nagar, Post- Jappnagar, Tehsil And District-
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
70. Rajesh Kumar Toppo S/o Dhani Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o
Gram- Kantughuda, Post-Petla, Tehsil-Sitapur, District-Sarguja,
Chhattisgarh.
71. Sulabh S/o Bali Ram Aged About 26 Years R/o Gram-Hasuli, Post-
Parsara, Tehsil-Ambikapur, District-Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
72. Shashi Kala S/o Gokul Aged About 27 Years R/o Gram- Sardha-
Bhata, Post- Baalpur, Tehsil- Bhilaigarh, District- Baloda Bazar,
Chhattisgarh.
73. Sujeet Prakash Tirkey S/o Jai Prakash Tirkey Aged About 29 Years
R/o Kundur Dihari Ward No. 08, Beech- Para, Ambikapur, District-
Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
74. Pushpa Ekka S/o Roop Sahay Ekka Aged About 27 Years R/o H.N.
17, Kadam Chowk, Gram- Sirpur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
7
75. Sangeeta Nikunj D/o Dev Dutt Nikunj Aged About 25 Years R/o
Bangaon, Post-Farsha-Bahar, District-Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
76. Mukesh Kumar Kanshi S/o Suraj Bali Kanshi Aged About 25 Years R/
o Kusmi Road, Ghutra Para, Bhudha Baghicha, Rajpur, District-
Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.
77. Vijay Kumar Bhagat S/o Sukhnath Ram Bhagat Aged About 34 Years
R/o Gram- Bangaon, Post- Farsabahar, District- Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
78. Kiran Pawle S/o Lt. Jagatpal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village-
Sahanpur, Thana- Village- Sitapur, District-Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
79. Jeevan Shirin Toppo S/o Visahu Toppo Aged About 38 Years R/o
192/2, Dharampur, Gewra Basti, Post- Kusmunda, District- Korba,
Chhattisgarh.
80. Onkar Gabel S/o Bharatdwaj Aged About 28 Years R/o D- 24, Ward
No.3, Pursa, Post- Raskela, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.
81. Vijay Kumar Rathi S/o Harideh Ram Rathi Aged About 31 Years R/o
Village- Hathimur, Post- Bundeli, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.
82. Nalish Kumar Anchal S/o Sidh Ram Anchal Aged About 31 Years R/o
Village And Post- Barela District-Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
83. Chiranjeevi Sinha S/o Eknath Sinha Aged About 33 Years R/o Gram
And Post-Chinchola, Tehsil-Butiya, District-Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
84. Chandrasikha Patel D/o Lt. Mahavir. Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o
Near B.R.C. Office, Tehsil And Post- Karasgaon, District- Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principle Secretary, Forest and
Culture Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur,
District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
8
3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principle Secretary, General
Administrative Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa
Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur, Through Its
Secretary, C.G.P.S.C. Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
and
Writ Petition (S) No. 6643 of 2021
1. Rahul Yadav S/o Shri Chhote Lal Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o
H.No.35, Abhishek Vihar Phase-2, Mangla, Post Mangla, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Hridyanand Sahu S/o Shri Manharan Lal Aged About 27 Years R/o
Ward No.11 Chhipali, Mahavir Para, Chhipali, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Rahul Panigrahi S/o Basant Kumar Panigrihi Aged About 26 Years R/
o Maan Chitra Gali, Shiv Mandir, Ward No.03, Post Jagdalpur,
District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Principal Secretary Forest and Culture Department, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr.Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate
General
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate.
For Intervenors : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior counsel,
assisted by Mr. Samarth Singh Marhas,
Advocate.
Date of hearing : 04.08.2022
Date of Order : 07.09.2022
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
C A V Judgment
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Petitioners No. 1 to 13, 14 to 81 and 82 to 84 in WPS No. 3358 of
2021 are B.Sc. in Forestry, M.Sc in Forestry and Ph.D. in Forestry,
respectively. The petitioner No. 1 in WPS No. 6643 of 2021 is B.Sc. In
Forestry and petitioners No. 2 and 3 are M.Sc. in Forestry.
2. In terms of order dated 02.12.2021 passed in WPS No. 3358 of 2021,
WPS No. 6643 of 2021 was directed to be listed along with WPS No. 3358
of 2021. Accordingly, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
3. The petitioners in WPS No. 3358 of 2021, make the following
prayers:
"10.1 That, writ and / or an order and / or a direction to
the Respondents to make provisions in the
recruitment, giving preference / subject specific
preference / certain percentage of post to be reserved
for the student graduated from B.Sc Forestry, M.Sc
Forestry and to the candidates who are graduates or
postgraduates in the stream of forestry sciences.
10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly to pleased Quash
the Advertisement dated issued by respondent No. 4
and direct the respondent authority particularly
respondent no. 4 to re issue the advertisement giving
preference to the student who graduated from B.Sc
Forestry, M.Sc. Forestry and to the candidates who
are Doctorate on Forestry.
10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly please to direct
respondent No. 4 to include the students who have
perused their studies in Master in Forestry. (M.Sc. In
Forestry).
10.4 That, writ and / or an order and / or a direction to
the Respondents to make amendment / provisions in
the Chhattisgarh Forest Services (Combined)
Examination Rule, 2014 of the State Forest
Department, giving preference / subject specific
preference / certain percentage of post to be reserved
for the student graduated from B.Sc. Forestry, M.Sc.
Forestry and to the candidates who are graduates or
postgraduates in the stream of forestry sciences.
10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly please to direct
the respondent authority to grant certain percentage of
post to be reserve for the students who graduated
from B.Sc. Forestry, M.Sc. Forestry and to the
candidates who are Doctorate in Forestry.
10.6 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit
in the facts & circumstances of case may also be
granted."
4. The petitioners in WPS No. 6643 of 2021 make the following prayers:
"10.1That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondents to make amendment/provisions
in the Chhattisgarh Forest Service (Combined)
Examination Rule, 2014 of the State Forest
Department being ultra virus vis-a-vis by not providing
preference/subject specific preference / certain
percentage of post to be reserved for the students
graduated from B.Sc Forestry & M.Sc. Forestry and to
the candidates who are graduates or postgraduates in
the stream of forestry science.
10.2 This Hon'ble Court may to pleased quash the
advertisement issued by respondent CG PSC and
direct the responded authority particularly respondent
CG PSC to re issue the advertisement giving
preference to the student who graduated from B.Sc.
Forestry, M.Sc. Forestry and to the candidates who
are Doctorate on Forestry.
10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly please to direct
the respondent authority to include at least 50% of
syllabus of Forestry Subject in Question Paper 2.
10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly please to direct
the respondent authority to grant certain percentage of
post to be reserve for the student who graduated form
B.Sc. Forestry, M.Sc. Forestry and to the candidates
who are Doctorate in Forestry.
10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit
in the facts & circumstances of case may also be
granted."
5. WPS No. 3358 of 2021 was admitted for hearing by an order dated
08.11.2021. By the said order, without prejudice to the rights and
contentions advanced in the writ petition, the petitioners were granted
liberty to appear in the examination for selection to post of Conservator of
Forest and Forest Ranger in terms of the advertisement dated 10.06.2020
as and when the same was conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission.
6. The advertisement dated 10.06.2020 was issued by Chhattisgarh
Public Service Commission for the recruitment of 21 posts of Assistant
Conservator of Forest and 157 posts of Ranger.
7. In WPS No. 6643 of 2021, an interim order was passed on
02.12.2021, providing that while respondents were permitted to hold the
examination as scheduled on 05.12.2021, result in respect of Assistant
Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger shall not be declared.
8. An intervention application, being I.A. No. 06 of 2022, was filed in
WPS No. 6643 of 2021 by the candidates, who had participated in the
recruitment process and by an order dated 21.07.2022, the applicants were
allowed to intervene in the proceedings.
9. During hearing, the learned counsel for the parties had placed
reliance on the pleadings and documents in WPS No. 6643 of 2021 and,
accordingly, reference will be made in the judgment to the contents of WPS
No. 6643 of 2021.
10. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents
No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for
respondent No. 4 (Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission) in both the
petitions. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.
Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for intervenors in WPS
No. 6643 of 2021, is also heard.
11. A perusal of the prayers in WPS No. 6643 of 2021 goes to show that
the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents to make
amendment / provisions in the Chhattisgarh Forest Service (Combined)
Examination Rules, 2014, by giving preference/ subject specific preference
/ certain percentage of post to be reserved for the students of B.Sc in
Forestry, M.Sc in Forestry and students possessing graduation and post
graduation degree in the stream of Forestry Science. The advertisement
dated 10.06.2020 is also assailed as there was no reservation for the
categories of students as mentioned above.
12. As per the advertisement, the examination is to contain two papers :
first paper contains subjects like General Knowledge, Language (English,
Hindi and Chhattisgarhi). The second paper includes subjects like,
Sciences and Technology, Chemistry, Physics, Environment Sciences,
Agriculture and Forestry. While the petitioners have got no objection to the
first paper, objection is taken to the second paper on the ground that very
little part of Forestry subject had been included in comparasion to other
subjects, resulting in reducing the possibilities of students of Forestry to be
selected in the examination.
13. It is pleaded that the nature of the job requires exclusive knowledge
of Forestry stream and many States like Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and
Kashmir, Odisha, Tamilnadu, Kerala, Gujarat, Jharkhand and Madhya
Pradesh had taken 50% of syllabus from the Forestry stream since 2021.
It is pleaded that the syllabus of Agriculture Universities are prepared as
per the guidelines of Indian Council of Agriculture Research and Indian
Council of Forestry Research and Education and therefore, the candidates
who posses B.Sc in Forestry and M.Sc. in Forestry would be better
qualified than other candidates for the jobs in question.
14. It is stated that every year, about 60 students pass out from various
Universities in Chhattisgarh and therefore, there is a large pool of
candidates to fill up the posts. It is further pleaded that the State of
Himachal Pradesh reserves 70% of posts under direct recruitment quota by
Forestry Graduates only; Government of Odisha has reserved 1/3rd of the
vacancies for the post of Rangers form amongst Forestry Graduates on the
basis of their merit in the final examination of the University; the State of
Karnataka has kept 50% reservation each for Forestry Graduates for the
post of Assistant Conservator of Forest as well as Forest Ranger; the State
of Kerala only recognizes a Degree in Forestry of Kerala Agriculture
University or of any other recognized University in India, for the post of
Rangers.
15. Reference is also made to resolution of the National Forest Policy
dated 07.12.1988, adopted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest as
well as the Chhattisgarh State Forest Policy dated 22.10.2001 and to the
order dated 05.10.2018 passed by this Court in WPPIL No. 19 of 2018
(Damini Sharma and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) .
16. In the return filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3, it is stated that the
petitioners have essentially prayed for a direction for legislating, which is
not permissible in law, as it is for the State to determine the eligibility
criteria as per requirement of a particular post. It is pleaded that though the
posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger fall under the
Department of Forest, apart from the Forestry activities, there are other
auxiliary works that have also to be performed and therefore, no candidate
can claim as a matter of right that his qualification be given special
preference over and above other candidates having minimum requisite
qualifications. A wide range of subjects which had been prescribed in the
syllabus demonstrates the requirement of the Department is to have
persons with proper skills to cater to the Government requirements. It is
also stated that even if some States had provided any reservation in their
services as per their own necessity, that would not bind others and that
apart, majority of the States of the Country have not framed recruitment
Rules in terms of the prayers made in the present petition. The National
Forest Policy, 1988 prescribes guidelines for management of forest with the
object of protection, preservation and forest management and it nowhere
stipulates that only person having Forestry education would be given
preference in Forest services and the policy only recognizes Forestry as a
scientific discipline as well as a profession. Dealing with Clause 4.1.1 of
the Policy, on which reliance is placed by the petitioners, it is stated that
while prescribing academic and professional qualifications in the
recruitment Rules, the same provides that Forestry should be kept in view
for recruitment to Indian Forest Services and the State Forest Services,
and accordingly, the State Government has already recognized the subject
of Forestry and have included the same as an eligibility criteria. Even in
Indian Forestry Service, there is no prescription allowing any additional
weightage or special preference to the graduates / post graduates in
Forestry. It is further stated that after a person joins the Department,
irrespective of whether he is from forestry or any other stream, they are
imparted two years training where 19 different subjects are taught to
enable them to perform their duties.
17. In terms of the order passed in WPPIL No. 19 of 2018, by an order
dated 19.12.2018, a Committee was constituted in the Department for
recommending the changes / amendments to be brought in the recruitment
Rules for the posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger.
The Committee, after due deliberation, had made recommendation for
inclusion of Forestry and Agriculture in the corresponding Rules.
Accordingly, an amendment was effected on 31.10.2020 in the
Chhattisgarh Forest (Gazette) Service Recruitment Rules, 2015, for short,
the Rules of 2015 and in the Chhattisgarh Forest Service (Combined)
Education Rules, 2014, for short, the Rules of 2014 vide notification dated
27.09.2021.
18. Again, a State level Committee was constituted to re-consider the
demands raised by the candidates and the said Committee comprising of
Chief Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Principal Secretary, Forest and
Climate Change Department, Secretary, General Administration
Department, and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in its meeting
held on 31.12.2021 decided that no other additional benefit is required to
be allowed in favour of graduates or post-graduates in Forestry stream.
19. A rejoinder-affidavit was filed by the petitioners.
20. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
academic institutions dealing with Forestry becomes redundant when the
students of these institutions are not given any kind of preference while
recruitments are made in Forest Department. It is submitted by him that
forest management and protection needs to be approached in a
professional and scientific manner as it is essential for ensuring the
sustainability of the environment and when the same is kept in view, there
cannot be any manner of doubt that the candidates, who have a
background in Forestry Sciences, would be the most suitable persons to
meet the requirements of the job and therefore, the prayers made by the
petitioners cannot be said to be unjustified. It is submitted that the
strategies as laid down in National Forest Policy, 1988, have not been
implemented in the recruitment Policy adopted by the State. He has
assiduously urged that this Court, while disposing of WPPIL No. 19 of
2018, had opined that the Rules are required to be suitably amended to
bring the same to be in tune with the needs of the hour for protection,
maintenance, preservation and restoration of forest but the respondents
have failed to attach any significance to the said order and had cursorily
and without any proper application of mind opined that no further
amendments are called for in the relevant Rules.
21. Abiding by the stand taken in the reply-affidavit, Mr. Pali submits that
there is no challenge to any Rules and what the petitioners are essentially
praying for is a direction from this Court to make amendments in the Rules
according to their perception, and this Court, in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not direct the Legislature or an
executive authority to amend or enact a Rule in a particular manner. It is
submitted that State is equally concerned for protection, preservation,
reservation and restoration of forest and, on due deliberation, did not find
favour for amending the relevant Rules as desired by the petitioners.
22. In such circumstances, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed, he
contends. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Supreme Court Employee Welfare Association v. Union of India
and Others, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 167 and in Zahoor Ahmad Rather &
Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Others, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404.
23. Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent
No. 4 and Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
intervenors, endorse the submissions of Mr. Pali.
24. Mr. Sinha has also placed reliance in the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mangalam Organics limited v. Union of India
and Other, reported in (2017) 7 SCC 221.
25. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the materials on record.
26. In the State of Chhattisgarh, the total forest cover area is 43.13% and
total forest area is about 44.21% and the State of Chhattisgarh occupies 3 rd
and 4th position with regard to forest cover and forest area, respectively.
27. It will be appropriate to reproduce the order dated 05.10.2018 passed
in WPPIL No. 19 of 2018, in its entirety:
"1. The reason for these petitioners, who are students
of Forestry, to file present Public Interest Litigation is
that the State of Chhattisgarh is still insisting on
recruiting generalists instead of specialists in the State
Forest
Department. It cannot be anybody's case now that the
management of forest resources of any State have to
be now better protected and managed to hold on to
the resources which are available. The Court would
not be hesitant in saying that the awareness towards
protection, maintenance, preservation and restoration
of forest to maintain ecological balances has been
brought into focus by the judicial intervention and a
National Forest Policy, 1988 was notified by the
Central Government.
2. Corresponding measures have been taken by most
of the other States so the State of Chhattisgarh cannot
be seen to be lagging behind since the
State is fortunate to be bestowed with significant forest
cover.
3. The courses and the syllabus, which may have
been laid down earlier and incorporated in the Rules,
especially Chhattisgarh Van Seva (Sanyukt) Pariksha,
2017 read with Rules, 2014, would be required to be
suitably amended and brought in conformity with the
needs of the hour as well as the National Forest
Policy, 1988 which wants specialized course in
Forestry to be included in the curriculum of various
Universities so that said students with specialized
knowledge could be hired for better implementation,
enforcement and preservation of forest.
4. The issue raised by the petitioners therefore in the
present writ application does require a re-visit by the
authorities of the State of Chhattisgarh and prayer
made herein cannot be said to be misplaced.
5. Writ application therefore stands disposed off with a
direction upon the Chief Secretary, Government of
Chhattisgarh, Raipur as well as Principal
Secretary, Department of Forest and Principal
Secretary, Department of General Administration to sit
together and take a decision as to what would be
required to be done by way of amendments and
changes in the existing rules or policy to give opening
to the students who have specialization in Forestry.
Such a decision should be taken by the State
authorities within a reasonable time frame."
28. A perusal of the order dated 05.10.2018 goes to show that the Chief
Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur as well as the Principal
Secretary, Department of Forest and Principal Secretary, Department of
General Administration were directed to sit together and take a decision as
to what was required to be done by way of amendments and changes in
the existing Rules or Policy and such a decision should be taken within a
reasonable time-frame.
29. WPS No. 3358 of 2021 was filed on 21.06.2021 and WPS No. 6643
of 2021 was filed on 24.10.2021. In both the writ petitions, reference to the
order dated 05.10.2018 was made.
30. A perusal of the return filed by the State would go to show that a
Committee was constituted on 19.12.2018. Who were the members of the
Committee is not stated in the return. In the letter dated 06.08.2020
addressed by the Principal Chief Conservator Forest to the Chief
Secretary, on the subject of amendment of Rules of 2015, there is no
reference to the order of this Court in WPPIL No. 19 of 2018. For long three
years, the order of this Court in WPPIL No. 19 of 2018 was not complied
with as no material is placed before this Court that any time prior to
31.12.2021, the Chief Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Principal Secretary,
Forest and Climate Change Department, Secretary, General Administration
Department and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had sat together.
It is only after the entertainment of these writ petitions, the Chief Secretary,
State of Chhattisgarh, Principal Secretary, Forest and Climate Change
Department, Secretary, General Administration Department had sat for a
meeting for one day with the Principal Chief Conservator Forest, as a
special invitee.
31. After a sitting on one date, a decision was taken that no amendment
is called for. The manner in which the meeting was held persuades us to
take a view that such a meeting was a mere window dressing just to show
some kind of compliance of the order of this Court dated 05.10.2018, after
long delay of three years.
32. We have serious doubt having regard to the manner in which meeting
was held and decision taken that there was really any serious
consideration of the issues flagged by this Court in WPPIL No. 19 of 2018.
It is not to say that this Court had directed the authorities to take a decision
in a particular manner, but what was mandated is due and proper
consideration of the relevant issues.
33. The question, however, arises as to whether in absence of any
challenge to any particular Rule, this Court, in exercise of powers of judicial
review, can direct framing of Rules or law in a particular manner.
34. The answer to the above question is well settled. It is not within the
domain of the Court to legislate. The Courts do interpret the law and in
such interpretation, certain creative process may also come to the fore.
This Court has jurisdiction to declare a law as unconstitutional, when it is
called for but this Court cannot embark upon a journey in policy making or
Rule making by issuing a writ of mandamus.
35. In Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association (supra) and in
Mangalam Organics limited (supra), it was categorically held that no Court
can direct the legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly, when an
executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of subordinate
legislation, pursuant to delegated authority of a Legislature, such executive
authority cannot be asked to enact the law, which it has been empowered
to do under the delegated legislative authority.
36. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra), at paragraph 27, it was observed
as follows:
"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. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 596 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.
(supra) turned."
37. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in these petitions
and accordingly, the same are dismissed. Interim order passed earlier
stand vacated.
38. However, since we have already held that we are not satisfied with
the manner and process in which the meeting dated 31.12.2021 was held
and a decision taken, we direct the Chief Secretary, Government of
Chhattisgarh, Raipur to re-visit the matter and after due deliberations with
the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest and Principal Secretary,
Department of General Administration, take a fresh decision in the matter.
39. We, however, hasten to add that we have expressed no opinion on
the merits of the prayers made by the petitioners. Since on the last
occasion, it took three years to hold a meeting for the purpose, which in no
event can be held to be a reasonable period within which the decision was
to be taken, we direct that a decision would be taken within a period of four
months from today.
40. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
