Madras High Court
M.Parthiban vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 9 January, 2024
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.2149 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 09.01.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.2149 of 2022
M.Parthiban .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
Environment and Forests Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Panagal Building, Saidapet
Chennai-15
3.The Chairman
Departmental Selection Board and
Chief Conservator of Forests (P&V)
O/o.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Panagal Buildings, Saidapet
Chennai-15 .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.24155 of 2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/15
W.A.No.2149 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.M.C.Swamy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Silambanan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
Assailing the order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned Judge in
W.P.No.24155 of 2010, the writ petitioner has preferred this writ appeal.
2. It is the case of the appellant that he was initially appointed as Typist
on 16.06.1990 in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and thereafter, promoted
as Assistant on 30.06.1994. In the year 1996, he applied for appointment to the
post of Forest Ranger under the quota allotted for recruitment by transfer from
the members of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. He participated in the
qualifying examination for deputation to the Forest Ranger's course, as per the
special rule outlined in the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules. The
appellant secured 368 marks as against the minimum total of 210 marks as per
G.O.(Ms) No.1054, Forests & Fisheries Department, dated 03.09.1983. In the
selection process for nine vacancies, only five candidates were selected and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deputed to the Forest Ranger's course and that, four other fully qualified
candidates including the appellant were left out. Feeling aggrieved, the
appellant along with others, preferred Original Application No.6928/1996
which was disposed of by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by
directing the authorities to consider the applications of the applicants for
deputation for the Rangers course. Pursuant to the same, the files of the
appellant and others were circulated to the Government. Though several
queries were raised and all were answered, no orders have been passed by the
Government. While so, the second respondent issued a notification dated
11.02.2010, calling for applications from the members of the Tamil Nadu
Ministerial Service for deputation to the Forest Ranger's Course. Feeling
aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P.No.24155 of 2010 to quash the said
notification dated 11.02.2010 and for consequential relief. After hearing both
sides, the learned Judge dismissed the said writ petition, by order dated
13.12.2021, the relevant portion of which is quoted below for ready reference:
"2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents,
on instructions, states that the Petitioner belongs to BC category and he had
to obtain 35% of marks in each subject, but he had secured only 24%, 34%
and 30% marks in English, Maths-I and Maths-II subjects respectively, which
led to his non-selection for the Rangers Course. Further, the age limit for BC
category to which the Petitioner belongs is 35 years, but on 01.04.2010, the
age of the Petitioner was 46 years. In such circumstances, he was not entitled
for the selection of Rangers Course. However, it has been pointed out that the
Petitioner, who was initially appointed as Forester in the Tamil Nadu
Ministerial Service was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Service as Forester on 02.07.1999 and by virtue of his seniority position in the
cadre of Forester, he was promoted to the post of Forest Range Officer and
has joined duty in that post on 09.02.2011 and he has been subsequently
granted further promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests on
14.07.2017 in the Tamil Nadu State Forest Service and he is still working in
Forest Department.
3. In view of the aforesaid submissions made, which deserve
acceptance, no further orders are required in this Writ Petition, except to
make it clear that if the Petitioner has any other grievance to be redressed in
the matter, he is not precluded from working out his rights before the proper
forum in the manner recognized by law.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid
clarifications. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
No costs."
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Judge, the writ petitioner is
before this Court with the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as per
the promotion policy, the backlog vacancies reserved as per the statutory rule
for appointment to the post of Forest Ranger by transfer from the Tamil Nadu
Ministerial Service for the years 1993-1996 were nine and therefore, when the
selection process commenced in the year 1996, the name of the appellant
should have been included in the list of candidates eligible to attend the
training course and on completion of the same, he should have been appointed
as a Forest Ranger. That apart, at the time of selection process in the year 1996,
the appellant was 32 years and 4 months and he belongs to Backward
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Community category and that, he had secured 368 marks as against the
minimum total marks of 210, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1054, Forest and Fisheries
Department, dated 03.09.1983 and therefore, he was fully eligible and qualified
to be sent to the training course and thereafter, appointed to the post of Forest
Ranger. However, the respondent authorities failed to select the appellant on
the premise that the candidates belonging to BC category should obtain 35%
marks in each subject, whereas the appellant had secured only 17% in Maths-I;
and that, he was over aged as on 01.04.2010. Without properly appreciating the
facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge also erred in dismissing
the writ petition, merely relying on the representation so made by the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent authorities, by the order
impugned herein. According to the learned counsel, since the respondent
authorities have not done the exercise of selection process for 14 years, the
appellant cannot be deprived of his chance of promotion. Hence, the learned
counsel prayed to set aside the order of the learned Judge and thereby allow
this writ appeal.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents submitted that during the year 1996, the second respondent
constituted a Board for selection of departmental candidates for deputation to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Ranger's course from among the members of Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Service in the Forest Department. The Board issued a notice dated 06.09.1996
inviting applications from the eligible candidates, in which, it was clearly
mentioned that a candidate must obtain 40% of marks (35% in the case of
candidates belonging to SC/ST/BC) in each subject in the written examination
for qualifying for admission to the oral test. Accordingly, 12 candidates
including the appellant herein, were found to be eligible for appearing in the
oral test. Out of 12, 6 candidates have obtained pass marks in the qualifying
examinations and the remaining 6 candidates, including the appellant herein,
have not obtained pass marks i.e., the required qualifying marks in each
subject. Therefore, the 6 candidates, who obtained the qualifying marks were
selected and sent for training course. According to the learned Additional
Advocate General, since the appellant belongs to BC category, he was expected
to obtain 35% marks in each subject. But, he obtained only 17% of marks in
Maths-I. Therefore, he was not selected for the Ranger's course training. That
apart, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the representation of the appellant
along with others, was considered and was ultimately, rejected, by the
Government in Letter No.14533/FR/97-5 dated 06.07.1998 and the said
rejection order was not challenged by the appellant. It is also submitted that the
appellant has no right to challenge the notification dated 11.02.2010 as he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not participated in the selection process. Even otherwise, the age limit for BC
candidates is 35 years, whereas the age of the appellant was 45 years as on
01.04.2010 and hence, he was not entitled for selection. Taking note of all
these facts through the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
authorities, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition, by the order
impugned herein, which does not require any interference by this court. The
learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the appellant was
promoted to the post of Superintendent and joined duty on 29.06.2011 and
subsequently, granted further promotion to the post of Personal Assistant on
22.02.2021 and is working in the Forest Department.
5. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on
record.
6. Before the writ court, the appellant prayed for the following relief:
"to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
the third respondent in connection with the notification in Ref.
No.B2/33489/2009 dated 11.02.2010 and quash the same and issue
consequential direction to the respondents to depute him to the Ranger's course
in Forest College and to recruit him as Forest Ranger with retrospective effect
from the date on which 1996 selectees' have been appointed as Forest Ranger
with all consequential benefits, within a limited time frame."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Indisputably, by the order impugned herein, the learned Judge without
going into the merits of the case, rejected the prayer made by the appellant, on
the basis of the statements made by the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent authorities. The said order of the learned Judge is
questioned by the appellant in this writ appeal.
8. At the outset, this court is of the view that the first limb of the prayer
made in the writ petition viz., to quash the notification dated 11.02.2010,
cannot be maintainable, having regard to the admitted fact that the appellant did
not participate in the selection process pursuant to the said notification, due to
his over age. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted
to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority / Court, that he
falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered
or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/ action/ order etc. in a court of
law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either
for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a
complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the
part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right
available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to.
The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that
such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such
performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking
the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such
extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a
legal right. Infact, the existence of such right is the foundation of the exercise
of the said jurisdiction by the court. The legal right that can be enforced must
ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of
such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide: State
of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad and
another v. State of U.P, AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company
(Proprietary) Ltd v. State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 1962 SC 1044;
Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736 and Tamilnad
Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association v. S.C. Sekar and others
(2009) 2 SCC 784]. In the instant case, having not participated in the selection
process, no individual legal right of the appellant has been breached by the
respondent authorities. Therefore, the appellant has no locus standi to question
the 2010 selection process.
9. As far as the second limb of the prayer made by the appellant in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
writ petition, relating to selection process conducted in the year 1996 is
concerned, it is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the appellant should have been selected for deputation to the Forest Ranger's
course in 1996 against the backlog vacancies reserved for appointment by
transfer from the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service for 1993-1996. It is the
further submission of the learned counsel that in the qualifying examination
conducted in October 1996, the appellant secured more than the minimum 210
marks as specified in G.O.Ms.No.1054 Forests & Fisheries Department, dated
03.09.1983, however, he was not selected, on the premise that he did not obtain
the qualifying marks of 35% in each subject. That apart, even after the order of
the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the claim of the appellant was not
considered by the Government.
10. On the other hand, it is the categorical stand of the respondent
authorities that for selection of departmental candidates for deputation to the
Ranger's course from among the members of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Service in Tamil Nadu Forest Department during the year 1996, the second
respondent constituted a selection Board, which called for applications from the
eligible candidates vide notice dated 06.09.1996. While so, it was prescribed
that a candidate must obtain 40% of marks (35% in the case of candidates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
belonging to SC/ST/BC) in each subject in the written examination for
qualifying for admission to the oral test; and the same was also mentioned in
the said notice. Whereas, the appellant did not acquire the requisite minimum
qualifying marks of 35% in each subject and he secured only 17% in Maths-I,
though his overall score was 368 marks; and hence, he was not selected for
Ranger's course training. It is also submitted that pursuant to the order of the
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Government considered the claim of
the appellant and rejected the same, by order dated 06.07.1998, which was not
challenged by the appellant.
11. From the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it
could be seen that the candidates were selected for Ranger's training for
recruitment to the post of Forest Rangers, through the selection Board
constituted by the second respondent and the Board prescribed the criteria for
such selection, one of which is that the candidates must obtain the minimum
qualifying marks of 40% (35% in the case of candidates belonging to
SC/ST/BC) in each subject for admission to the next level of selection.
Admittedly, the appellant belonging to BC category, did not secure the
minimum qualifying marks in Maths-I and he obtained only 17 marks, which
led him to the non-selection for the Ranger's course. He made representation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
through the authorities concerned, to consider his candidature for the post in
question, in the light of G.O.(Ms)No.1056 dated 03.09.1983, wherein, it was
stated that those who have secured 210 marks in total in the qualifying
examination are eligible for being deputed to the Forest Rangers course. The
Government rejected the said representation, by Letter No.14533/FR2/97-5
dated 06.07.1998, which was not challenged by the appellant and the same
attained finality. Thereafter, much water has flown.
12. Normally, the decision of the selection Board cannot be interfered
with by the Court, in the absence of any mala fide attributed to the members of
the same. In the present case, no such allegation was raised by the appellant. It
is the grievance of the appellant that as per G.O.Ms.No.1054 dated 03.09.1983,
which was in force, during the relevant point of time, the overall marks
obtained in the written examination are the eligible criteria for selection to the
Rangers course training and not the minimum qualifying marks of 35% in the
category of BC, in each subject, as have been prescribed by the selection Board.
This court is of the opinion that the appellant, having participated in the written
examination without raising any objection, cannot now turn around and contend
that the selection process was contrary to the said G.O.Ms.No.1054 dated
03.09.1983. It is also important to point out at this juncture that the claim of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant based on the said contention, was already rejected by the Government
and the rejection order was not challenged by the appellant, before any court of
law. Merely because vacancies existed earlier, the appellant had no vested right
to be promoted in 1996 itself, disregarding the applicable eligibility norms.
Furthermore, the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed by the
selection Board. Therefore, the relief sought by the appellant to depute him to
the Ranger's course and thereafter recruit as Forest Ranger with retrospective
effect from the date on which 1996 selectees have been appointed, cannot be
considered at this length of time.
13. In overall view of the matter, this court has no hesitation to observe
that the order of the learned Judge in dismissing the writ petition, requires no
interference. Accordingly, this writ appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
09.01.2024
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gya/rns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Environment and Forests Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Panagal Building, Saidapet
Chennai-15
3.The Chairman
Departmental Selection Board and
Chief Conservator of Forests (P&V)
O/o.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai-15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya / rns
09.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
