[2025:RJ-JP:27133] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6133/2019 Pooran Mal Choudhary Son of Shri Shyam Lal Choudhary, Aged About 61 Years, Resident of C-169, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through its Deputy Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan Jaipur. 3. Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma for Mr. Ashok Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 21/07/2025 1. Instant Civil Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “By appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned order dated 26.08.2013 may kindly be quashed and set aside with relates to promotion of junior persons to the appellant. Further, the communication of adverse entry dated 05.09.2007, rejection order dated 21.09.2010 and communication order dated 19.07.2013 may kindly be quashed and set aside. Judgment of the Tribunal dated 18.5.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. It appears that petitioner has raised a grievance for not according promotion from the post of Ranger Grade I to Assistant [2025:RJ-JP:27133] (2 of 4) [CW-6133/2019] Conservator of Forest against vacancies for the year 2012-13, 2013-14. Petitioner has filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, which has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 18.05.2018. The order of Tribunal dated 18.05.2018 is under challenge before this Court. 3. It appears that as per Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962, petitioner was required to pass a Departmental examination for promotion, but such examination was passed by the petitioner in the month of March, 2015, which obviously could not have been considered for granting him promotion for the vacancies of preceding years i.e. 2012-13 and 2013-14. 4. In addition, it has come on record that in the previous service record of seven years, prior to year 2012-13, several adversarial entries have been marked against the petitioner in respect of improving his working efficiency. A number of letters dated 09.06.2006, 21.06.2006, 14.07.2006, 13.09.2006 and 09.10.2006 time and again were written by the Deputy Forest Conservator, Dungarpur, notifying the shortfall/negligence in discharging duties by the petitioner, but same have not been rectified. All these factual aspects have been considered by the Tribunal in detail and thereafter, petitioner's case was not found eligible for consideration of promotion. 5. That apart, the Tribunal has also observed that petitioner raised a point that persons junior to petitioner have been given promotion, but he has been deprived. On that count, the Tribunal clearly observed that persons junior to petitioner were not [2025:RJ-JP:27133] (3 of 4) [CW-6133/2019] impleaded as party in the appeal, who were adversely affected by the outcome of appeal. 6. It is settled proposition of law that interference in the fact findings by the writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 is extremely narrow and limited and may not be exercised like an Appellate Court. In that respect, a celebrated judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [(2001) 8 SCC 97], may be referred, wherein explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (emphasis supplied) [2025:RJ-JP:27133] (4 of 4) [CW-6133/2019] 7. The challenge made to the adversarial entries by the petitioner is found belated and more so same was not challenged by the petitioner in the appeal before the Tribunal. 8. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference and petitioner is not entitled for other relief. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 10. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /34