Madras High Court
M.Mani vs The Principal Chief Conservator Of ... on 26 July, 2022
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.15958 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.15958 of 2014
M.Mani ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 15.
2.Mrs.Gnaeswari ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to appoint the
petitioner as Forest Watcher from the date on which the second respondent
was appointed as Forest Watcher and pay all arrears of salary, seniority and
other consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
[For R1]
Mr.S.Mani [For R2]
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15958 of 2014
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Forest Watcher from the date on which the second respondent was appointed as Forest Watcher and pay all arrears of salary, seniority and other consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner states that he was working as Plot Watcher in the first respondent's Thiruvannamalai Division during the relevant point of time. He was initially appointed as temporary Plot Watcher in the year 1982. The petitioner states that the time scale of pay was granted to him by the competent authority.
3. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 08.03.1999, directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to prepare State wide seniority list of Plot watchers working in the various Departments for the purpose of granting the benefit of permanent absorption subject to assessment of their eligibility and other criterias.
2/5https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15958 of 2014
4. Accordingly, the State wide seniority list was prepared and the name of the petitioner was included in the seniority list. However, he was not appointed as Forest watcher. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
5. With reference to the claim of the writ petitioner, the 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner has not qualified to read and write in Tamil as per the letter of the District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam Division dated 28.05.2009. In this regard, Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
“6. It is submitted that the writ petitioner was absorbed as supernumerary post of Plot watcher from 07.08.2009 as per G.O.Ms.No.95 Environment and Forest (FR-2) Department dated 07.08.2009 in the scale of pay Rs.2500-5000+GP 500. Earlier wards the writ petitioner was allotted as Reserve watcher in Sathyamangalam Division as per Principle Chief Conservator of Forests No.SF2/19195/05 dated 28.07.2005. But the writ petitioner did not to read and write in Tamil. The writ petitioner is allowed for 15 days to each read and write but he has not qualified to read and write in Tamil as per District 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15958 of 2014 Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam Division, Letter No.E2/1710/08 dated 28.05.2009. The petitioner was consider, but due to lack of qualification prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rule, the writ petitioner has not availed opportunity. Hence he is not eligible for Reserve Watcher Post.”
6. In view of the fact that the petitioner was found that he is not eligible for appointment to the Post of Forest Watcher in accordance with the Service Rules in force, no further consideration is required.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
26.07.2022 Index : Yes Speaking order:Yes kak To
1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
4/5https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15958 of 2014 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak W.P.No.15958 of 2014 26.07.2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis