Madras High Court
R. Bala Murugan … vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 19 September, 2023
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
R. Bala Murugan … Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Environment and Forest Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
Pangal Maligai,
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. … Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in his
letter No.19835/FR.2(II)/2018-4 dated 09.07.2019 and quash the same as far as
the petitioner is concerned as arbitrary and illegal and consequently directing
the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the panel for the post of
“Forest Guard” pertaining to the year 2016-2017 and grant consequential
benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
For Petitioner : M/s.T.Dharani
For Respondents : Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the first
respondent in his letter No.19835/FR.2(II)/2018-4 dated 09.07.2019 and quash
the same as far as the petitioner is concerned as arbitrary and illegal and
consequently directing the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the
panel for the post of “Forest Guard” pertaining to the year 2016-2017 and grant
consequential benefits.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was appointed as casual labour in the Tamil Nadu Forest Department in the
year 1993 and in the year 2006 he was appointed as permanent mazdoor in the
Tamil Nadu basic service and his education is Secondary School Leaving
Certificate (SSLC) completed. In the year 2014 he was appointed as 'Forest
Watcher' by transfer in the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service and in the
year 2017 panel for the post of 'Forest Guard' for year 2016-2017 was issued in
the proceedings of the second respondent herein in No.AB2/27389/2017-1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
dated 19.05.2018 and the petitioner's name was shown against Serial No.43 as
'Not Selected'. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that his name was not
selected for the reason that he do not possess minimum general educational
qualification namely SSLC pass. In this context, it is relevant to point out that
one E.Swaminathan and K.Baskaran were earlier promoted as Forest Guards
from the post of Forest Watchers even though they do not possess the minimum
general educational qualification.
3. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner along with
three others made a representation to the 1 st respondent by letter dated
28.11.2018 to consider their promotion to the post of Forest Guard on par with
that of other Forest Watchers who were similarly placed and the 2nd respondent
in his letter No.AB2/41280/2018 dated 23.04.2019 has sent proposal to
Government for exemption of the minimum general educational qualification
prescribed for the Forest watchers appointed from the category mazdoors on par
with that of Forest Watchers appointed from the category of social Forestry
workers and plot watchers so that the indiscrimination meted out to one
category of Forest Watchers may be annulled. However, the 1 st respondent in his
letter No.19835/FR2(II)/2018-4 dated 09.07.2019 has rejected the proposals of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
the 2nd respondent since it is against Section 20 (3) of Tamil Nadu Government
Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that the letter of the 1st
respondent discloses differential treatment among the holders of the post of
“Forest Watchers” which is against the rule of law established under Article 14
of the Constitution of India. When one set of Forest Watchers like
E.Swaminathan and K.Baskaran who are similarly placed persons like the
petitioner do not possess SSLC qualification and they have been considered for
promotion to the post of Forest Guard earlier but the petitioner's name was not
included in the panel. The promotion to the post of Forest Guard under the
Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate service rules which was framed under Article
309 proviso to the Constitution of India under which one set of people were
given promotion whereas for the petitioner the promotion has been rejected
arbitrarily quoting section 20(3) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant
(condition of services) Act 2016.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the 2nd respondent
himself has accepted that there is a discrimination by allowing one set of “Forest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
Watchers” who do not possess minimum general educational qualification to
have benefit of promotion as “Forest Guards” whereas the same right is being
rejected for another set of “Forest Watchers” similarly placed. Therefore, he has
come out with a proposal to give an uniform treatment to all persons appointed
as “Forest Watchers”. But the 1st respondent without application of mind and
without any regard for the rule of law established under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India have simply rejected proposal of the 2nd respondent.
6. In support of his above contention, the learned counsel relied upon
the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of:
i) K.C.Balaji Vs. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 777
wherein it is held that State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose
amongst similarly situated persons to pursue legal proceedings
against some and not to do so consciously against others. Such
approach would be ex facie arbitrary, unjust and violation of
Article 14
ii) Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC
898) wherein it is held that Rule of Law which permeates the
entire fabric of Indian Constitution excludes Arbitrariness.
“wherever we find arbitrariness or unreasonableness there is the
denial of rule of law” Article 14 acts primarily a guarantee against
arbitrariness and inhibits state action whether legislative or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
executive which suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. Every state
action must be non-arbitrary and reasonable.
iii) Hasia Vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) SCC
722 wherein it is held that any arbitrary or unreasonable action of
authority under Article 12 would be violation of Article 14. What
Article 14 strikes Arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of
equality.
iv) H.L.Trehan Vs Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 764
wherein it is held that observance of rules of Natural justice is a
requirement of Article 14 and so must be observed unless
expressly excluded.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that Article 309 of the
Constitution of India provides that Acts of the appropriate legislative may
regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public
service posts in connection with the affairs of the union or any state. Pending
provision in this behalf being made by or under an Act, rules regulating the
recruitment and other service conditions of persons appointed to such posts can
be made. The state legislature has passed the Government Servants (conditions
of Services) Act, 2016 under Article 309. This Act do not cover the special rules
for Forest Subordinate services.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of
this Court to G.O.Ms.No.64 Environment and Forest Department dated
09.03.1999 wherein it is mentioned that for appointment to the post of Forest
Guard minimum qualification of SSLC is not required. More over, the learned
counsel referred to the proceedings of the Wildlife Warden, Guindy, Chennai
dated 14.03.1997 in which one Kanniappan, Contingent Mazdoor has been
temporarily appointed as Permanent Mazdoor and also to the proceedings of the
Chief Conservator of Forests (Forest Conservation Act), dated 01.04.2003 in
which the said Kanniappan was promoted as Forest Guard and also to another
proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 09.09.2010 in which one Swaminathan
and Baskaran were promoted as Forest Guard from the post of Forest Watchers.
9. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the 1st
respondent, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
10. Counter affidavit dated 09.11.2021 has been filed by the 2 nd
respondent and it is relevant to extract the following paragraphs from the
counter affidavit:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
II). It is submitted that the petitioner stated that
Thiru.E.Swaminathan and Thiru.K.Baskaran who were Senior in
the cadre of Forest Watcher and they were not possess Minimum
Educational Qualification have been considered for promotion to
the post of Forest Guard vide Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, Chennai Ref.No.AB2/46440 /2010.
It is submitted that Thiru.E.Swaminathan and
Thiru.K.Baskaran who were promoted as Forest Watcher from the
post of Plot Watcher service category and not for the service from
Mazdoor category. As per G.O.Ms.No.206, Environment and
Forests (FR2) Department, dated 13.08.2012 ordered that the
educational qualification prescribed for promotion of Forest
Watchers to Forest Guard shall not be applicable to the Malis who
are appointed from the among the social Forestry Workers as Plot
Watchers and to the Forest Watchers who are appointed from
among Village Social Forestry workers, Plot Watchers and
Scheduled tribes engaged as Anti Poaching Watchers. As per the
above Government order they were promoted as Forest Guard.
vi). It is submitted that as per the request of the
petitioner's representation dated 17.09.2018 to send a proposal to
the 1st respondent stating that the minimum General educational
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
qualification need not be insisted for promotion as Forest Guard.
Accordingly a draft amendment proposal to include the category
of Mazdoor in rule 5 has been sent to the 1st respondent, by the 2nd
respondent herein through Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, Chenai Ref.No.AB2/41280/2018 dated 13.10.2018. In
this regard, the 1st respondent herein, through vide letter
No.19835/FR.2(II)/2018-4 dated 09.07.2019 has rejected the
proposal, since it is against section 20(3) of Tamil Nadu
Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. Hence
the petitioner's statement in the affidavit that there is a
discrimination by allowing one set of “Forest Watchers” who do
not possess minimum general education qualification to have
benefit of promotion as “Forest Guards” whereas the same right
is being rejected for another set of “Forest Watchers” similarly
placed is incorrect.
11. The learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the
averments made in the counter affidavit.
12. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
13. The petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Watcher and now,
he seeks promotion to the post of Forest Guard in the panel year 2016 – 2017. It
is pertinent to point out that one Kanniappan who is similarly placed like the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
petitioner,was appointed temporarily as Mazdoor and he was promoted as
Forest Guard by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings, but, the same benefit was
not extended to the petitioner, which amounts to indiscrimination under Article
14 of the constitution of India. Further, this Court finds substance in the reliance
placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court set out in paragraph No.6 supra.
14. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid four
judgments, the impugned order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the 1st respondent
by referring to Section 20 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants
(Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, according to which, the proposal of the
petitioner was rejected, but, the same section was not pressed into service in the
case of Swaminathan and Baskaran who have been promoted as Forest Guard,
which amounts to clear case of discrimination and the order itself is
unsustainable in law. Hence this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be
quashed and the same is accordingly quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
15. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed and the respondents
are directed to include the petitioner's name in the panel for the post of Forest
Guard pertaining to the year 2016-2017 and grant consequential benefits within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
19.09.2023
dpq
Index :Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
To:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Environment and Forest Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
Pangal Maligai,
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
dpq
W.P.No.2553 of 2020
19.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
