JUDGMENT
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.
1. These petitions are filed by the persons who have been serving as daily wagers in the Social Forestry Division of Sabarkantha Forest Division since many years. The petitioners in Special Civil Applications No.4377 of 2000, 4378 of 2000 and 4379 of 2000 have been serving from 1.1.1993, 1.9.1989 and 6.10.1991 respectively. The petitioners were paid daily wage of Rs.69.30 per day.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the State Govt. took a policy decision as to make recruitment to the posts of Beat Guards from daily wagers, like the present petitioners of the Forest Department. Therefore, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Gujarat State issued a circular dated 28.9.1998, a copy of which is produced at Annexure ‘A’ to the petition. The circular was sent to all the Conservators of Forest of all the circles and divisions. Pursuant to the aforesaid policy of the State Government dated 28.9.1998, the Conservator of Forest, Gandhinagar directed the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gandhinagar as well as Sabarkantha (South) and Sabarkantha (North) to prepare a list of daily wagers who had completed 240 days on or before 31.3.1997. A list of 37 daily wagers was prepared which is at Annexure ‘C’ to each of these petitions. The name of the petitioners in Special Civil Applications No.4377 of 2000, 4378 of 2000 and 4379 of 2000 are at serial nos.29, 21 and 25 respectively.
Though not specifically mentioned in these petitions as to who are the juniors of the petitioners appointed as Beat Guards, it is stated that most of the daily workers whose names are shown in the said list at Annexure ‘C’ have been given appointment as Beat Guard. In Special Civil Application No.3852 of 2000 it is placed on record that persons at serial no.30 and 33 are given appointment, whose appointment orders are also placed on record of that petition, which aspect is taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the present petitions.
3. The petitioners who were waiting for appointment orders were surprised to learn that out of the list of 37 persons, a copy of which is at Annexure ‘C’, 14 persons were appointed by the department, none of whom are the petitioners. The petitioners were excluded for no fault of the petitioners, for the reasons not known, rather say for extraneous consideration. Thus, the petitioners herein are alone left out.
4. The petitioners having come to know about the appointment orders of the persons much below in merit list as well as in the seniority, called on the respondent authorities and requested the authorities to issue appointment orders in their favour, as stated in para 6 of the petition. But the representations of the petitioners did not bear fruits.
5. Said action of the respondent authorities is challenged by way of the present petition being unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, bad in law, null and void, contrary to the canons of equity, justice and fair play and good conscience and also violative of the principles of natural justice.
6. The Court issued notice on 3.5.2000, making it returnable on 8.5.2000, and ordered to hear the matters with Special Civil Application No.2447 of 2000. In response to the notice, Messrs Patel Advocates appeared for the respondents. On 8.5.2000, rule came to be issued. Messrs Patel Advocates waived service of rule. Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondents could not put forward any tenable defence to justify the action of the respondent authorities. Mr. Patel could not explain as to why the petitioners were denied appointment from the list of 37 daily wagers, produced at Annexure ‘C’ to the petition. Mr. Patel, learned advocate could not put forward any valid or convincing reasons as to why the persons junior and lower in the merit list than the petitioners were appointed. Mr. Patel had no reply as to on what grounds the petitioners were denied the benefit of appointment as Beat Guard as per the policy of the Government, a copy of which is produced at Annexure ‘A’ to the petition.
7. A perusal of the policy of the Government produced at Annexure ‘A’ to the petition makes it clear that the rules for recruitment to the post of Beat Guard as amended were accepted by the Govt. and accordingly necessary instructions were issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. It is clearly laid down in the said policy that on the basis of the interview, lists of ‘fit’ and ‘unfit’ workmen are prepared; thereafter, select list is prepared from the list of ‘fit’ workmen on the basis of the result of the interview. Finally, the persons are appointed according to serial number in the said select list. It is also provided in the policy that before giving appointment as Beat Guard, select list will be required to be scrutinised by the Conservator of Forest and once the Conservator of Forest grants approval to the selection list, the Deputy Conservator of Forest will issue appointment orders to the persons whose names are on the select list, as Beat Guard.
8. Mr. Patel, learned advocate is not able to point out any reason for which the petitioners could not be given appointment though their names appeared at higher merit position in the list in question. He was also not able to answer as to why the persons who have joined as daily wager in the years 1992, are given preference over the present petitioners who joined as daily wagers in the years 1989, 1991 and 1993. In absence of any justification from the respondent authorities, the action is held to be unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the policy of the Government.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment as Beat Guard in accordance with the policy produced at Annexure ‘A’ to this petition and on having found them eligible for appointment, to give them appointment as Beat Guard from the date their juniors are given appointment as Beat Guard. Looking to the facts of the case, cost of Rs.2500/-, (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) be paid to each of the petitioners. The authorities shall decide the case of the petitioners within the period of 10 (ten) weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court.
10. These petitions are allowed with the aforesaid directions. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.