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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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:
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
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
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
