JUDGMENT
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash the appointment of respondents 4 to 7 as Forest Rangers in the quota of Ex.Servicemen with effect from the date his name was recommended with all consequential benefits.
2. According to the petitioner, in December, 1994 seven posts of Forest Rangers were advertised and all the posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Again in the year 1995 six posts of Forest Rangers were advertised out of which two posts were reserved for the candidates belonging to Ex. Servicemen category and four were reserved for the candidates belonging to Schedule Castes category. It was mentioned that if the Scheduled Castes candidates are not available, then the candidates belonging to general category or from Ex. Servicemen category will be considered. In pursuance of the advertisement in 1994, the official respondents appointed three candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes category, three candidates from general category and one candidate belonging to Ex. Servicemen category since seven Scheduled Castes candidates were not available and the four posts of Scheduled Castes which could not be filled in pursuance of the 1994 selection were carried forward alongwith two posts of Ex. Servicemen category and they were advertised in the year 1995 and the petitioner applied for the post of Forest Ranger against the quota reserved for Ex. Servicemen since his father was an Ex. Serviceman. But the respondents converted five posts belonging to the Ex. Servicemen quota to the general category and appointed three persons belonging to the General Category in pursuance of advertisement of 1994 and two posts were filled up from the waiting ‘list’ from General Category. Thus according to the petitioner, five posts belonging to Ex. Servicemen category have been filled up from the General Category candidates who were in the waiting list of the advertisement issued in the year 1994 ignoring the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was fully eligible for the post of Forest Ranger meant for Ex. Servicemen being a dependant of an Ex.Serviceman. The official respondents appointed three persons from the merit list belonging to Ex. Servicemen category even though two posts were advertised. They are respondents 4 and 5 and one Ved Parkash. Further according to the petitioner respondents 4 and 5 had applied in the category of dependents of Ex. Servicemen whereas Ved Parkash was himself an Ex. Serviceman. The petitioner also averred that respondents 4 and 5 were not eligible for appointment as Forest Rangers on the ground that respondent No. 4 does not have chest of 79 Cms. which was a pre-requisite for the post of Forest Ranger. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the appointment of respondents No. 4 and 5 on the ground that they do not belong to Ex. Servicemen category.
3. The petitioner also challenged the appointment of respondents 6 and 7 on the ground that they were appointed from the general category though the petitioner was available for appointment from the Ex. Servicemen category. He further alleged that there are 24
vacancies reserved for Ex. Servicemen in the direct quota and only 8 candidates belonging to the said category are holding the posts of Forest Rangers. Thus there is a short-fall of 16 Ex. Servicemen candidates and the 1st respondent on a request from the Principal Chief Conservator converted five posts of Forest Rangers from the Ex. Servicemen category to the General Category. The petitioner also alleged that though his name was recommended by the Subordinate Selection Board (for short the “SSB”) for appointment as Forest Ranger in March 1996, his claims have been ignored by converting the posts belonging to Ex. Servicemen category to that of General Category and appointed respondents 6 and 7. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking to quash the appointment of respondents 4 to 7 and direct the official respondents to consider his case for appointment as Forest Ranger.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement contending inter alia that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition since no legal right of the plaintiff has been infringed. According to them, a requisition for seven posts of Forest Rangers from the category of Scheduled Castes was sent to ‘SSB’ on 24.10.1994 and they were accordingly advertised and the ‘SSB’ recommended seven candidates out of them ‘three belonged to General Category, one belonged to Ex. Serviceman and remaining three belonged to Scheduled Castes category. Since these posts were meant for Scheduled Castes category only, the case was sent back to the ‘SSB’ and the candidates belonging to Ex. Servicemen category and General Category were not deputed for training, but however the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Forest Department directed that the candidates selected by the ‘SSB’ be deputed for training and directed that the case of 5 posts for de-reservation be sent to the Government. The ‘SSB’ also sent a waiting list of three candidates vide its letter dated 3.4.1995. On the receipt of the approval for de-reservation of five posts by the Government, the general category candidates were also deputed for training. Thus nine candidates were deputed for training. Again a requisition of six candidates was sent to ‘SSB’ on 10.8.1995. Out of the said six posts, four were reserved for Scheduled Castes and two for Ex. Servicemen. The ‘SSB’ recommended 12 candidates out of which four candidates belonged to Scheduled Castes and three belonged to Ex. Servicemen category and they were deputed for training. According to the respondents 1 and 2 one candidate belonging to Ex. Servicemen category was deputed for training beyond advertisement. Thus according to respondents 1 and 2 five posts reserved for Ex. Servicemen category have been converted into General Category by an order of the Government dated 2.4.1996. Therefore, respondents 6 and 7 were deputed for training. It is further averred that since the petitioner has no right to be appointed, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Respondents 4 and 5 filed a separate written statement contending that the writ petition challenging the selection held in 1994 and 1995 is not maintainable. According to them in the advertisement issued in 1995, it was clearly mentioned that the number of posts is liable to variation to any extent either way. They further contended that they were held to be eligible against the quota meant for Ex. Servicemen category and the 4th respondent was fully eligible as he satisfied the requirement of physical measurements and they have been rightly deputed for training with effect from 2.4.1996. It is further averred that the father of respondent No. 4 remained in Military Service from 19.6.1962 to 1.4.1990 and thereafter he joined the service of Government of India in Doordarshan Maintenance Centre. Later he resigned the said post on 8.5.1993. Thereafter the father of respondent No. 4 joined the Haryana State Electricity Board as Junior Engineer on 10.5.1993. From that post also, he resigned and the father of the 4th respondent was not getting any post-retiral benefit either from the Government of India or from the Haryana State Electricity Board.
Therefore, the 4th respondent was eligible to claim the benefit of reservation meant for the dependents of Ex, Servicemen. It is also averred that the father of respondent No. 5 joined the service of Zila Parishad as Gram Sewak in the year 1956 and he retired in the year 1984. Therefore, the respondent No. 5 was entitled to avail the benefit of reservation meant for the dependents of Ex- Servicemen.
6. Respondents No. 6 and 7 filed a separate written statement contending inter alia that the petitioner is not eligible to claim appointment on the basis that he is a dependent of an Ex. Serviceman. According to them, the petitioner managed an eligibility certificate from the Zila Sainik Board and his father is professional who belongs to creamy layer of the society. They further averred that due to non-availability of the suitable candidates, the general category candidates were recommended by the ‘SSB’ and they have been appointed on the basis of their merit and there is no ground to challenge and quash their selection and appointment to the post of Forest Ranger.
7. Though the petitioner challenged the selection made in pursuance of the advertisement issued in December, 1994, the petitioner was not an applicant. Therefore, he cannot challenge the selection made in 1994. In the selection made in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 1995, two candidates belonging to Ex. Servicemen category have been appointed. But according to the petitioner, the said candidates were not eligible to be appointed. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that respondents 4 to 7 were eligible to be appointed against the quota meant for Ex. Servicemen. The record shows that the father of respondent No. 4 remained in Military service from 19.6.1962 to 1.4.1990. The fact that his father joined service in the Doordarshan Maintenance Centre and the Haryana State Electricity Board is no ground for denying the benefit to respondent No. 4 as a ward of Ex. Servicemen. No rule or authority was brought to my notice that after having been discharged the father of respondent No. 4 from military service, his son is not entitled to be considered in the category of wards of the Ex. Servicemen. Therefore, I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 4 belongs to Ex. Servicemen category.
8. Annexure R-5/1 shows that the father of the 5th respondent was enrolled in the Army on 23.8.1948 and he was discharged from service on 23.12.1953. Annexure R-5/2 also shows that the 5th respondent produced the Eligibility Certificate and the Subordinate Services Selection Board also recommended his name against the quota of ‘DESM’ (dependents of Ex. Servicemen).
9. In Annexure R-IV which is a list of the selected candidates recommended by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 11, whereas respondents No. 4 and 5 were shown at Sr. No. 3 and 6 in order of merit. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 against the quotameant for Ex. Servicemen.
10. Respondents 6 and 7 were appointed against the vacancies notified in the advertisement issued in the year 1994. As already observed, since the petitioner was not the applicant for the posts advertised in the year 1994, he has no legal right to challenge the appointment of respondent 6 and 7.
11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. However, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is a back-log of vacancies belonging to Ex. Servicemen quota and there are also vacancies in the Forest Department. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Forest Ranger since his name has been recommended by the
Subordinate Services Selection Board. It is not disputed before me by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, that there is a back-log of vacancies in the quota of Ex. Servicemen. Since the petitioner’s name has been recommended by the Subordinate Services Selection Board and since there are vacancies in the category of Ex. Servicemen, I direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Forest Ranger if there is any vacancy available and if he is otherwise found suitable and eligible.
With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.