[2025:RJ-JP:37578-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1040/2025 Rajendra Prasad Gurjar Son Of Shri Shishram Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Mosampur, Post Mohammadpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, (Raj.) ----Appellant 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 Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 16/09/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant was dismissed. 2. In first round of litigation, the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant was disposed of by the learned Single Judge giving liberty to the petitioner for submitting the representation before the respondents with regard to his grievance. The petitioner submitted the representation which was dismissed by the respondents vide order dated 17.04.2025. Against the said [2025:RJ-JP:37578-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1040/2025] rejection the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that in first round of litigation, the petitioner has never questioned answers of four questions nor sought any liberty to raise such an issue in the representation and observed as under: “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 the 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 the 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 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” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner/appellant was never examined on merits either by the respondents or by the learned Single Judge. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order passed by learned Single Judge. 5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as in the first round of litigation, the petitioner has never questioned answers of four questions nor [2025:RJ-JP:37578-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1040/2025] sought any liberty to raise such an issue in the representation, therefore, raising such grievance in the second writ petition by improving his case, is not permissible and in our considered view, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant. 6. In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Anu /40