[2025:RJ-JP:17902] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11624/2016 Vikram Singh Jhala S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Jhala aged about 24 years, resident of Dak Bangla Road, Kalidas colony, Jhalawar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. 2. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary Forest Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretarait, Jaipur. Principal Chief Forest Conservator, Van Bhawan, Vaniki Path, Jaipur 3. 4. 5. Deputy Conservator Forest, Jhalawar. Chief Forest Conservator, Jhalawar. Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Laxminarayan Gurjar, resident of Village Chhoti Taal, Tehsil Pidawa, District Jhalawar, (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Lodha, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 28/04/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent No.1 invited application for the post of 'Forest Guard' vide advertisement dated 16.10.2015. As per aforesaid advertisement, there were 62 vacancies advertised in the Jhalawar region, out of which 10 vacancies were reserved for 'S.C.', 3 for 'S.T.', 9 for 'O.B.C.' and 3 for 'S.B.C.' and the remaining vacancies were meant for unreserved candidates. [2025:RJ-JP:17902] (2 of 6) [CW-11624/2016] 2. As per the petitioner, he participated in the process pursuant to advertisement dated 16.10.2015 and after completion of the process his name was placed at serial No.1 in the waiting list. 3. As per the petitioner, Sh. Jitendra Gochar, whose name appears in the main select list refused to join pursuant to his selection, therefore, waiting list was required to be operated and since petitioner's name was there at serial No.1 in the waiting list meant for unreserved category, he had legitimate right to get appointment on the post for 'Forest Guard'. 4. Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since, the respondents were not giving appointment to the petitioner despite being at serial No.1 in the waiting list, he approached this Court by way of filing instant writ petition along with stay application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has indicated that this Court vide order dated 30.08.2016 issued notices to the respondents and also passed interim order to the extent that the respondents were restrained from making appointments ignoring merit positions of the candidates. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that on the very same day, the petitioner intimated the Deputy Forest Conservator, Jhalawar that in the writ petition filed by him, he has been granted stay order, however, copy of stay order could not be made available and the same would be placed as soon as it will be received by the petitioner. The aforesaid application dated 10.08.2016 is duly received in the office of respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that despite having notification with regard to the stay order dated [2025:RJ-JP:17902] (3 of 6) [CW-11624/2016] 30.08.2016 passed by this Court in quite audacious and contemptuous manner, the respondents issued order dated 31.08.2016, reference to which has been given in reply to the writ petition in additional pleas, wherein, the respondents have attempted to explain that actual copy of the stay order was submitted by the petitioner at 02:40 p.m. on 31.08.2016, whereas by that time in the morning at 10:30 a.m., the respondents had already issued appointment in favour of Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar. Copy of alleged order dated 31.08.2016 has not been placed on record by the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated along with reply to the writ petition, the respondents have filed one letter dated 16.08.2016, whereby necessary information was given by the Regional Chief Forest Conservator to the concerned authorities in order to show that the petitioner as well as Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar had equal marks but Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar was allegedly elder in age than the petitioner, hence, appointment was accordingly given to Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that it would reveal by bare perusal of the select list as well as the waiting list that the name of Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar has not been included in either of the list and at no point of time such main merit list or waiting list has been amended/modified by the respondents. 10. At that stage, the petitioner was constrained to amend the writ petition so as to implead Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar as a party- respondent in the writ petition as well as to challenge the necessary orders/communications. [2025:RJ-JP:17902] (4 of 6) [CW-11624/2016] 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally appointed Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar, ignoring the merit list and the waiting list, which is patent and manifest error on the parts of respondents. Being at serial No.1 in the waiting list and on account of denial of one of the candidate from the merit list with regard to joining on appointment, the petitioner had legitimate and preferential right of appointment on the post for 'Forest Guard'. The respondents have illegally deprived the petitioner of his right of appointment by passing orders not only in illegal manner but also to defeat and circumvent the directions given by this Court. 12. This Court vide order dated 09.05.2023 directed the learned counsel for the respondents to apprise the Court that under what circumstances, the respondents have offered appointment to a person whose name was not reflected in the reserve merit list. 13. Almost two years have lapsed since passing aforesaid order dated 09.05.2023, yet quite surprisingly, no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the respondents in compliance of order dated 09.05.2023. Today also, time was sought by the learned counsel for the respondents, which looking to the time gap has been declined by this Court. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that although merit list and reserve list was not revised, yet it has been considered by the Competent Authority that the petitioner as well as respondent-Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar have obtained equal marks, therefore, preference has been given to the person who is elder in age and as per the respondent-Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar was elder in age. Hence, appointment order was issued in favour of [2025:RJ-JP:17902] (5 of 6) [CW-11624/2016] Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar. However, no document in support of such contention has been placed on record in order to show that the marks obtained by the petitioner as well as respondent No.5-Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar were equal and Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar was elder in age than the petitioner. 15. It is settled proposition that recruitment process is conducted as per the procedure contemplated in the Rules as well as advertisement. The Rajasthan Subordinate Forest Service Rules, 2015 as well as the terms of advertisement would make it clear that select list shall be prepared of the candidates who succeeded in the process and appointment shall be given in accordance with such select list. 16. From perusal of record as well as final select list as well as reserve list, this Court does not find that name of respondent No.5-Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar was ever included either in the select list or in the waiting list. It is not the case of the official respondents that they, at any point of time even subsequently, have modified the select list or the reserve list. 17. Under these circumstances, only on the basis of whims and fancies of the officers of respondent-Department, appointment cannot be given to a person whose name was never reflected either in the select list or in the reserve list. 18. Under these circumstance, where despite order passed by this Court on 09.05.2023, no explanation, much less than any sufficient explanation has been given by the respondents for appointing person whose name was never reflected in the reserve merit list, this Court finds that the action of the official [2025:RJ-JP:17902] (6 of 6) [CW-11624/2016] respondents in appointing respondent No.5-Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar was totally arbitrarily and illegal. 19. The petitioner, being at serial No.1 in the reserve list, which was admittedly operated by the official respondents, is entitled for being appointed on the post of 'Forest Guard' from the date on which the other candidates have been given appointment pursuant to advertisement dated 16.10.2015. The petitioner is also entitled for all consequential benefits and continuity in service, however, actual monetary benefits shall not be given to him and he shall be entitled for pay fixation and seniority on notional basis for the intervening period. 20. In view of above discussions, appointment of respondent No.5-Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar is hereby quashed and official respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in the aforesaid manner. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this Order. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. 22. Stay application as well as all pending applications shall also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/233