Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhansukh vs State (Forest) & Ors on 5 May, 2011
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3918/2011
(Dhansukh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)
Date of Order : 05.05.2011
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the notice 25.4.2011 (Annexure-7) so also the order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure-8) whereby the petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that the appointment was made on the basis of wrong documents filed by the petitioner, claiming reservation provided to Ex-serviceman.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no concealment was made by the petitioner and all genuine documents were submitted along with application form for considering his candidature for appointment on the post of Forest Guard by the respondents. The respondents themselves considered the candidature of the petitioner against the quota of ex-serviceman and provided appointment to the petitioner vide order dated 8.4.2011, therefore, when the petitioner was substantially appointment then obviously at the time of terminating his services, a reasonable opportunity of hearing was 2 to be given to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that termination order is in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, same may be quashed.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the entire record of the case and relevant rules providing right of consideration for appointment to the Ex- servicemen.
The definition of ex-serviceman is provided under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-servicemen) Rules, 1988 which reads as under :
"An ex-serviceman" means a person who has served to any rank whether as a combatant or non-combatant in the Regular Army, Navy and Air Force of the Indian Union"
Upon perusal of the definition of ex-serviceman, it is abundantly clear that BSF personnel cannot be treated to be a ex-serviceman, therefore, the consideration of the petitioner for appointment against the vacancies of reserved quota of ex- serviceman was wrong. The respondents while giving notice to the petitioner on 25.4.2011 made it clear that the petitioner has wrongly been considered under the category of ex-serviceman on the basis of wrong documents filed by him, therefore, passed the order dated 26.4.2011, terminating the services of the petitioner.
In my opinion, the petitioner cannot claim 3 appointment as a matter of right against the vacancy which is reserved for ex-servicemen because petitioner was BSF personnel, therefore, cannot be treated as ex-serviceman to claim appointment against the vacancy reserved for ex- servicemen.
In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the orders impugned passed by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
However, candidature of the petitioner may be considered against the available vacancies of General Category for appointment under the General Category and after completing all the formalities for the post, if any in existence, then, the petitioner may be provided appointment, if he is otherwise eligible.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas), J.
arun