SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
P. Kalimuthu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 189 of 2015
Decided On : 20-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K. Jenitha, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M. Bindran, Additional Government Pleader.

The court upheld the importance of meeting the prescribed physical qualification standards as per the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules for eligibility for promotion to the post of Forest Watcher.

Headnote:

Forest Watcher - Rejection of Promotion - The court upheld the rejection of promotion to the post of Forest Watcher due to the petitioner's failure to meet the physical qualification standards as per the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought promotion to the post of Forest Watcher with consequential benefits, but was rejected due to not meeting the physical qualification standards.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner did not possess the requisite physical standards as per the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules, and therefore upheld the rejection of the promotion.

Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's eligibility for promotion to the post of Forest Watcher based on the physical qualification standards.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the petitioner did not meet the prescribed physical standards as per the relevant rules, and therefore was not entitled to the relief sought.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed by the court, and no costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.L.L.2/25643/13, dated 23.06.2014 and to quash the same with consequential direction to promote the petitioner as Forest Watcher with effect from the date of his junior's promotion with all consequential benefits.)

1. The order impugned dated 23.06.2014, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Watcher with effect from the date of his junior's promotion with all consequential benefits is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Plot Watcher on daily wages basis on 01.041982. Subsequently, his appointment was converted as Social Forestry Worker with effect from 19.11.1982 by the Forest Officer, Social Forestry Range, Kallakurichi. The petitioner was working more than 3 decades and his services are not regularised.

3. As per the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules, Rule No.5, the requisite qualification for the appointment to the post of Forest Watcher is,

    (1) Ability to read and write tamil

(2) 163 cm of height and

(3) Chest measurement ranging from 79 to 85 cm.

4. The Plot Watcher and Social Forestery Workers, who have complied with the above qualifications under the Rules were appointed as Forest Watcher on regular basis. The petitioner was also participated and his case was rejected on the ground that his height was 162 cm. The prescribed height is 163 cm. During the relevant point of time, when the petitioner participated in the selection, physical measurement test was conducted and the candidature of the writ petitioner was rejected. Thus, the reason for rejection cannot be construed as erroneous.

5. When the petitioner did not possess the requisite physical standards as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules, the decision taken by the authorities are in consonance with the rules and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. That apart, even at the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 56 years and now he would age around 64 years. This being the factum, there is no point in considering the case of the writ petitioners for grant of relief.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top