Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9227/1998 1/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9227 of 1998
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
VIKRAMSINHJI
JATUBHA JADEJA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
JD AJMERA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
MR.
JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI
Date
: 06/04/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By way of this petition the
petitioner has prayed for directions, directing the respondents to
give promotion to the petitioner from the post of Chokidar to the
post of Forest Guard.
The brief facts of the case
are as under :-
2.1
As per the say of the petitioner, he was informed by the Employment
Exchange Officer, Bhuj that for the post of Forest Guard the
interviews were to be held on 5th February, 1981.
2.2
The petitioner was selected. Posting order was given to the
petitioner and in the said order dated 18th February,
1981, a change was made namely instead of posting as Forest Guard
his posting was made as Chokidar. The petitioner has raised his
grievance in respect the same by several communications. However, no
reply has been received by him. He had made several representations
to the ministry too but in vain and till date his case is not
considered for promotion. Hence present petition.
Heard learned advocates for
the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
The respondents had filed
their reply, wherein it is stated as under :
4.
With reference to the averments made in para:2 of the petition, I
say and submit that the Recruitment to the post of Beat Guard is
Governed by statutory Recruitment Rules for the post of Beat Guards
which are produced herewith as Annexure-R.1 to this affidavit. I
further say and submit that as per provisions of Recruitment Rules
for beat Guards, following minimum physical standards for
eligibility are prescribed.
Height:
163 CMS,
Chest:
Normal 79 CMS. Expanded: 84 CMS
Minimum
Chest expansion: 5 CMS
I
further say that pursuant to the letter of employment office Bhuj,
petitioner was examined and interviewed on dated 5.2.1981 by the
respondent no.3. At the time of interview, petitioner was found to
be lacking in minimum physical standards prescribed by Recruitment
Rules for Beat Guards. His height was found to be 162.5 Cms, as
against 163 Cms. prescribed under the rules. He was working as
Laborer in Nursery of Forest Department and he was considered
sympathetically instead of rejecting him outright. Inspite of he is
being physically unfit he was appointed as Chokidar. He expressed
his willingness to work even as Peon before appointing authority. I
further say and submit that the entries proving petitioner’s
physical unfitness and his willingness to work even as Peon is duly
recorded by interviewing and appointing Officer in his handwriting
in the relevant register at the time of interview of dated 5.2.1981.
The original Register will be produced before the Hon’ble Court at
the time of hearing, if necessary.
From the record it appears
that the petitioner, along with eight other Chokidars were examined
and interviewed again on 5.8.1981 for selection and appointment to
the post of Beat Guard. The petitioner has failed in physical
fitness test while some chokidars were selected from the same
selection list and were appointed as Beat Guards. Therefore I am of
the opinion that the petitioner cannot make claim for similar
benefit as those who were selected for the post of Beat Guards. In
that view of the matter, petition is devoid of any merits. Hence
petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]
*Himansu
Top