Karnataka High Court
Sri Santhosh M S vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2023
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
WP No. 23554 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 23554 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI SANTHOSH M S
S/O SRI. MAYELA MALEKUDIYA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/A THAR DIDDU DHARKASU HOUSE
EDU VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK
UDUPI DISTIRCT 574109
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B V VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS ECOLONY AND
ENVIRONMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 003
Digitally
signed by BY ITS SECRETARY
NARASIMHA
MURTHY
VANAMALA 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR FO FORESTS
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ECOLONY
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560 003
3. DEPUTY CHIEF CONSERVATOR FO FORESTS
DEPARTMETN OF FOREST AND ECOLOGY
-2-
WP No. 23554 of 2022
BANGALORE 560 003
4. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
AND SELECTION AUTHORITY
MANGALORE DIVISION
MANGALORE
5. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR FO FORESTS
KUDREMUKH WILD LIFE DIVISION
KARKALA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S.NAGARAJA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 28.02.2019 OF THE
R3 BEARING NO.A4.SIBBANDI: .VEE.MEE.VIVA.106/
2017- 18 AT ANNEXURE-H TO THE PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner resides in Edu Village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District, and he is aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-H). The petitioner is informed by this impugned Endorsement that he cannot be appointed as a Forest Watcher because he does not live within the Kudremukh -3- WP No. 23554 of 2022 Wildlife Sanctuary in terms of the report submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kudremukh Wildlife Division, Karkala.
2. The Department of Forests issued Notification in the month of July 2018 to fill up different posts, including five [5] posts of Forest Watchers with Kudremukh Wildlife Division, Karkala and out of these five [5] posts, two [2] posts were reserved for Forest Dwelling Tribes as mentioned in the Notification subject to the condition that the applicant should have studied up to VII Standard within the area that comes under Kudremukh Wildlife Division and resides within the forest within such Division.
3. It is undisputed that because both these posts are not filled up consequent to the Selection Notification issued in the month of July 2018, another Notification is issued in the year 2020 -4- WP No. 23554 of 2022 treating these two unfilled posts as backlogs, and in the selection process subsequent to this Notification, a certain Sri. Santhosha is appointed. The other post continues to remain vacant. The petitioner, who has called in question the rejection of his candidature pursuant to the first Notification in the year 2018, has also sought for directions to the third respondent to consider his case for appointment as against such vacant post.
4. Smt. B.V.Vidyulatha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner cannot dispute that he does not reside within Kudremukh Wildlife Sanctuary but the respondents also cannot dispute that the petitioner resides within 250 meters from the edge of the reserve, and this 250 meters would be within Eco Sensitive Zone. A buffer of a kilometer from the edge of the reserve must be maintained as Eco Sensitive Zone where there are restrictions on activities. If the petitioner resides -5- WP No. 23554 of 2022 within Eco Sensitive Zone [Eco Sensitive Buffer] and there is no other application by a person who resides within the forest, the petitioner cannot be denied the advantage of employment on the ground that he does not reside in the forest.
5. Smt. B.V Vidyulatha also the submits that even the respondents' understanding who would be a Forest Dwelling Tribes qua the place of residence within Kudremukh Wildlife Sanctuary is also that it would include a tribal residing within the Eco Sensitive Buffer inasmuch as another Sri. Santhosha, who also resides within the Eco Sensitive Buffer and at a distance of 330 meters from the border of the Kudremukh Wildlife Sanctuary, is appointed consequent to the subsequent Notification issued in the year 2020.
6. Sri. M.S.Nagaraja, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the Notification -6- WP No. 23554 of 2022 is categorical, and the benefit of reservation would be available to a person hailing from the Forest Dwelling Tribes provided such person resides within the forests in the Division, and this stipulation cannot be extended to accommodate a person who admittedly resides outside the forest. He also refutes the petitioner's reliance on the appointment of another despite the fact that he also resides in Eco Sensitive Buffer at a distance of 330 meters from the edge of the reserve contending that factually this assertion is incorrect inasmuch as this person lives within the forest in the Division but without placing any material on record.
7. The question for consideration is: whether the respondents could have denied the petitioner the benefit of his employment when they do not dispute that he resides at a distance of 250 meters from the edge of Kudremukh Wildlife Reserve and within the buffer of a kilometre from the edge of the reserve -7- WP No. 23554 of 2022 which is to be maintained as Eco Sensitive Zone [Eco Sensitive Buffer].
8. The reservation to the post of a Forest Watcher is contemplated for Forest Dwelling Tribes who reside within the Forest/Forest Reserve within a division. The present controversy is because of the prescription that such person must reside within the Forest/Forest Reserve. This Court must record that this prescription very arguably is to ensure, amongst others, that such person's indubitable familiarity with an arduous way of life as a Forest Dweller is harnessed to bring about suitability to the job as a Forest watcher. If this so, it is nigh difficult for this Court to countenance that a tribal person who resides within the Eco Sensitive Buffer [which is a kilometer from the edge of the Forest Reserve and where certain activities are restricted] would be non- suitable and should be excluded from the selection -8- WP No. 23554 of 2022 process even when there is no application from a tribal person who lives within the Forest Reserve.
9. This Court must observe that this opinion is not to conclude that both a tribal person who lives within the forest reserve and a tribal person who lives in the Eco Sensitive Buffer must be placed on even kneel, and this must be considered in an appropriate when the circumstances of a particular case justify. However definitely, when there is no application1 from a tribal person who resides within the Forest Reserve, a tribal person who resides within the Eco Sensitive Buffer cannot be excluded as this person would also be acquainted, as aforesaid, with the circumstances that are necessary to discharge the functions of a Forest Watcher.
1 It is undisputed that there is no application either to the first Notification in the year 2018 or in the subsequent Notification in the year 2020 from a person who resides within the forest in the Division.
-9-WP No. 23554 of 2022
10. This Court must therefore intervene and quash the impugned Endorsement dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure - H) and call upon the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for appointment as Forest Watcher consequent to his application filed pursuant to the Notification issued in the year 2018, provided that there are no further Notifications for filling up this post. For the foregoing, the following:
ORDER
a) The petition is allowed, and the impugned Endorsement dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure
- H) is quashed. The petitioner is reserved liberty to file a representation with the third respondent - the Deputy Chief Conservator of Forests - within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy for his appointment to the post of
- 10 -WP No. 23554 of 2022
Forest Watcher pursuant to the Selection Notification in the year 2018.
b) The third respondent shall consider such representation and issue suitable orders provided there are no subsequent Notifications for filling up this post, and the third respondent shall so consider the representation within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of his representation.
Sd/-
JUDGE RB