Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M. Elumalai & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 14986 to 14989 of 2014
Decided On : 26-07-2022
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Mandamus
Act Referred
Headnote
Mandamus - Forest Watcher Appointment - The court directed the first respondent to appoint the petitioners as Forest Watcher from the date on which their juniors were appointed and pay all arrears of salary, seniority, and other benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to appoint them as Forest Watcher from the date on which their juniors were appointed and pay all arrears of salary, seniority, and other benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the first respondent to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the rules and initiate appropriate actions, strictly in accordance with the State wide seniority list.
Issues: The main issue was the non-appointment of the petitioners as Forest Watcher despite their inclusion in the seniority list.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the cases of the petitioners were not considered, the first respondent is bound to consider them in accordance with the rules and initiate appropriate actions.
Final Decision: The court disposed of all the writ petitions with the direction to the first respondent to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the rules and the State wide seniority list.
For the Parties:K.M. Ramesh, Advocate, R1, S. Anitha, Special Government Pleader, R2, P. Rameshmumar, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
(Common 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.)
1. The relief sought for in the present writ petitions is to direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioners as Forest Watcher from the date on which the second respondents were appointed as Forest Watcher and pay all arrears of salary, seniority and other consequential benefits.
2. The claim of the writ petitioners is that they were continuing in service as Plot watchers during the relevant point of time.
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.
4. Accordingly, the State wide seniority list was prepared and the name of the petitioners were included in the seniority list. However, they were not appointed as Forest watcher.
5. In this regard, the petitioners submitted representation to the first respondent, requesting him to appoint them as Forest Watcher from the date on which their juniors were appointed as Forest Watcher with seniority and all other monetary benefits. However, they have not received any reply from the first respondent. Thus, the petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petitions.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the if the cases of the writ petitioners were already considered by the competent authorities and if they found not eligible in accordance with the rules, then no further consideration is required. If the cases are not considered, then the 1st respondent is bound to consider the same in accordance with the rules and initiate all appropriate actions. It is made clear that the said exercise is to be made strictly in accordance with the State wide seniority list, which was published by the respondents.
7. With these observations, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.
