St at e of Ut t arakhand and Ot hers v. Vij ay Pal Singh

Mr. Puran Singh Bisht , learned Addit ional Chief St anding Counsel for t he St at e/ appellant s. Mr. Hem Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for t he respondent . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

1. There is delay of 69 days in filing t his appeal. For t he reasons indicat ed in t he Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion CLMA No.7682 of 2018, we condone t he delay. Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion st ands allowed.

2. St at e has filed t his appeal challenging t he j udgm ent dat ed 19.02.2018 rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 325 of 2009. By t he said j udgm ent , t he writ pet it ion filed by t he respondent was allowed and t he aut horit ies were direct ed t o offer appoint m ent t o t he respondent as Forest Guard from due dat e wit h all consequent ial benefit s. Operat ive port ion of im pugned j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - “ Since pet it ioner was paid on voucher/ m ust er- roll basis, hence it cannot be t erm ed t hat he was paid on daily- wage basis. Pet it ioner had already com plet ed t hree years as Seasonal Worker and fall wit hin t he definit ion, as not iced hereinabove. Moreover, t he st at us of t he pet it ioner was t o be det erm ined not on t he m ode of paym ent but whet her he has worked for t hree seasonal years or not . The m ode of paym ent of wages is not valid crit eria t o be seen at t he t im e of regular izat ion. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion is allowed. I m pugned Annexur e No. 7 is quashed and set aside. Respondent s are direct ed t o offer appoint m ent t o t he pet it ioner as Forest Guard from due dat e wit h all consequent ial benefit s, w it hin t en weeks from t oday. Pending applicat ion, if any, also st ands disposed of accordingly.”

3. St at e has challenged t he said j udgm ent only on t he ground t hat t he respondent was not serving as seasonal em ployee on t he dat e of select ion, t herefore, he is not ent it led t o t he benefit of relevant Rules and learned Single Judge erred in holding t hat respondent is ent it led t he benefit available t o seasonal em ployees.

4. Learned counsels t he part ies are unanim ous on t he point t hat , as per t he applicable Recruit m ent Rules, seasonal em ployees are ent it led for appoint m ent on t he post of Forest Guard against 65% post s and 25% was required t o be filled by direct recruit m ent and t he rem aining 10% are earm arked t o be filled by prom ot ion of Group ‘D’ em ployees.

5. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat t he respondent was not ent it led for appoint m ent as Forest Guard against vacancies reserved seasonal em ployees as he was not working on t he dat e of m aking applicat ion and he had served as seasonal em ployee only up t o 2006, while advert isem ent was issued on 12/ 13.07.2008.

6. The definit ion of “ Seasonal Workers” as given in Rule 3 ( i) of t he applicable Recruit m ent Rules is reproduced in t he im pugned j udgm ent . There is no requirem ent of serving as seasonal em ployee on t he dat e of advert isem ent or on t he dat e of m aking applicat ion m ent ioned in t he Rules, Thus, we concur wit h t he view expressed by learned Single Judge. The advert isem ent also does not m ent ion any condit ion t hat one should be serving as seasonal em ployee on t he dat e of m aking applicat ion for appoint m ent . I n t he absence of any st ipulat ion in t he Rules/ advert isem ent , t he eligibilit y of t he respondent for appoint m ent cannot be t aken away.

7. Law is well set t led t hat in case of am biguit y in t he rules or advert isem ent , benefit t hereof has t o be given t o t he candidat e concerned. Thus, we do not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent .

8. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat learned Single Judge has direct ed t he aut horit ies t o appoint t he respondent wit h all consequent ial benefit s in disregard of his ranking in t he m erit list , which is not proper. We find subst ance in t he said subm ission. Select ion for public em ploym ent is m erit based. There m ay be ot her candidat es, who com pet ed for t he vacancies reserved for seasonal em ployees, and m ay have scored m ore m arks t han t he respondent . We, t herefore, m odify t he direct ion issued by t he im pugned j udgm ent and direct t he Com pet ent Aut horit y t o consider t he claim of respondent for appoint m ent st rict ly as per his m erit / m arks scored in t he select ion.

9. Subj ect t o t he above, present appeal st ands disposed of. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

16.07.2025 16.07.2025 Raj ni RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db 48448ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d 9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A222 2B4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013 F530616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN