2026:HHC:19274 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2681 of 2019 Decided on: 22.05.2026 Shri Balak Ram … Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. D.S. Kainthla, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) With the consent of the parties, the case was taken up for consideration today. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “i.) That Respondent-Corporation may be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Guard from the date his juniors have been promoted by convening the review DPC i.e. w.e.f. 07.10.2015.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that whereas persons junior to him stand promoted against the post of Forest Guard, he has not been considered for the same. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Fieldsman in the respondent-Corporation on daily wage basis in the year 1988. His 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:19274 services were regularized w.e.f. 02.06.1999. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category. As per learned Senior Counsel, vide order dated 07.10.2015, 234 Chowkidars/Fieldsmen were promoted against the post of Forest Guard vide Annexure P-2, but petitioner was ignored wrongly. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- Corporation has referred to the reply filed by the Corporation and submitted that present writ petition is totally misconceived. By referring to the reply, learned Counsel argued that in terms of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, for the post of Forest Guard, 90% posts of Forest Guard were to be filled by placement from amongst matriculate or middle pass Timber Watcher who were having nine years of service and 10% of the posts were to be filled in by promotion by limited selection of Class-IV employees other than Timber Watcher with five years of service in the grade, who were matriculate or ten years of service, who are middle pass. He submitted that with a view to provide promotion avenues to eligible Chowkidars/Fieldsmen, the matter for amending in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules was placed before the Service Committee and the Committee made the following recommendations:- “The amendment in recruitment & promotion rules for the promotion of Forest Guards and for the post of Resin/Timber Watchers was approved to enable filling up vacant post of Forest Guards and Resin/Timber Watchers from amongst eligible Chowkidars/Fieldman The 3 2026:HHC:19274 educational qualification for filling up vacant posts of Forest Guards from eligible Chowkidars/Fieldmen would be matriculate with 5 years of minimum service and age less than 50 years and for vacant posts of Resin/Timber Watchers from eligible Chowkidars/Fieldman would be Middle Pass with 9 years of minimum service and age less than 50 years. This would be a onetime relaxation in R&P Rules vis-a-vis educational qualification and age standards." Same was ratified by the Board of Directors in its Meeting held on 06.12.2013 and as a result, a fresh Seniority List of Chowkidars/ Fieldsmen, who were having qualification of 8th pass and were above the age of 50 years as on 01.04.2013, was issued on 23.11.2013. The name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No.292 in the said Seniority List. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Board of Directors in its Meeting held on 20.04.2014 decided to have a fresh look into the matter by the Service Committee qua grant of exemption in physical standards and age, as most of the incumbents at the relevant time had put in more than twenty years of service, but may of them were being disqualified either on account of physical standard or age criteria. The matter was again placed before the Service Committee on 07.01.2015. The Service Committee approved one time relaxation in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Forest Guard by doing away with the age and chest/height criteria. The matter was again placed before the Board of Directors and the recommendation was ratified. Thereafter, a fresh 4 2026:HHC:19274 Seniority List of Chowkidars and Fieldsmen, as it stood on 31.01.2015, was issued on 07.04.2015. The promotions were effected on the basis of said Seniority List, dated 31.01.2015. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, by referring to Para-8 of the preliminary submissions of the reply submitted that in terms thereof, no one junior to the petitioner was promoted against the post of Forest Guard except five persons who were promoted, as belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category against the Quota of their Category. 7. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Shri Munshi Ram, whose name is reflected against Scheduled Tribe Category, is indeed a Scheduled Caste candidate. 8. Learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the person belonging to tribal area has been considered for promotion as a Scheduled Tribe candidate as he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the present petition. 10. The grievance of the petitioner primarily is that persons junior to him stand promoted against the post of Forest Guard. Except a bald assertion made in this regard in the petition, there is no mention as to which person junior to the petitioner has been promoted against the post of Forest Guard. The stand of the 5 2026:HHC:19274 Corporation that five persons, who were promoted against the post of Forest Guard against Scheduled Tribe Quota, though junior to the petitioner, but were promoted against Scheduled Tribe Quota, could not be demonstrated to be incorrect during the course of hearing of the case. Even the contention that Shri Munshi Ram was wrongly promoted as a Scheduled Tribe candidate could not be substantiated by the petitioner, whereas learned Counsel for the respondent produced for the perusal of the Court a Certificate issued in favour of Shri Munshi Ram, in terms whereof, Shri Munshi Ram, son of Shri Bashakhi, was resident of Village/Muhal Sambra, Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P., which was a tribal area and a Certificate had been issued in his favour by the Competent Authority that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe Category. 11. Therefore, in light of above discussion, as this Court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be granted liberty to approach the Competent Authority for the purpose of financial upgradation. The petitioner may approach the Authority for the same in case he is entitled for the same as per law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) 6 2026:HHC:19274 Judge May 22, 2026 (Rishi)