[2025:RJ-JP:28570] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11109/2025 Rajendra Prasad Gurjar Son of Shri Shishram Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years, Resident of Village Mosampur, Post Mohammadpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Department of Forest, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. President, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajya Krishi Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Chief Forest Conservator, Arawali Bhawan, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 29/07/2025 1. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner, as undisputedly first Writ Petition being SBCWP No.5471/2023 preferred by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2025 with liberty to petitioner to submit a representation. The representation submitted by the petitioner has been decided vide order dated 17.04.2025 (Ann-18) whereagainst the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. The facts of the case are that petitioner appeared in the examination of Direct Recruitment for the post of Forest Guard- 2020 under the MBC category and when he was not shortlisted in the merit list, petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 5471/2023, [2025:RJ-JP:28570] (2 of 3) [CW-11109/2025] stating inter alia, that petitioner is higher meritorious than the last cut off candidates belonging to MBC category, hence, his candidature be considered on merits. 3. Undisputedly, in the first Writ Petition, petitioner never disputed answers of questions and the scope of writ petition was confined to claim himself as higher meritorious than the last selected candidate under MBC category. 4. In the order impugned dated 17.04.2025, it has clearly been observed that indeed petitioner obtained 66.7456 marks whereas the last cut off marks under the MBC category in the final result is 68.9748. This factual aspect has not been denied. 5. Counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner also disputed answers of four questions in his representation, but that aspect has not been considered. 6. This Court finds that in the first writ petition, admittedly, petitioner never questioned answers of four questions nor sought any liberty to raise such an issue in the representation, hence, disputing the answers of four questions in the representation is of no avail. The argument of counsel for petitioner that if answers of four questions would have been changed as suggested by the petitioner, he may come within merit, seems to be speculative and spacious. Petitioner cannot be allowed to improvise his case which was not pleaded in the writ petition, hence, the arguments raised by counsel for petitioner is misplaced and is hereby rejected. 7. In that view of the matter, since petitioner stands lower in merit than the last cut off candidates under MBC category in the examination of Direct Recruitment of Forest Guard- 2020, denial [2025:RJ-JP:28570] (3 of 3) [CW-11109/2025] for consideration of his candidature for appointment, does not warrant any interference. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 9. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /7