1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7476 of 2018 1 - Vanshmani Pratap S/o Thakur Prasad Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Budhar (Mandalpara) Pots Office Bidhar, Tehsil Baikunthpur District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Conservator Forest Department Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest (Wild Life) Cum Field Director (Elephant Reserve), Surguja Circle, Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Mukesh Kumar S/o Shivpal Ram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Leduwa, Post Tejpur, Tehsil- Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Preetam Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, PL For respondent No.4 : Mr. Krishna Kant Prajapati, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus calling for the original records pertaining to the subject recruitment, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus quashing the impugned selection list particularly the respondent no. 4 in the OBC category, in the -2- interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Game Guard pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an advertisement was issued on 27.08.2018 and a merit list was prepared on 01.10.2018. He would further submit that respondent No.3 published an advertisement for the recruitment of 18 posts of Game Guard for 4 districts. Out of 18 posts, 6 posts were allotted to Surajpur District; 4 posts to Balrampur District; 2 posts to Jashpur District and 6 posts to Korea District. He would also submit that the petitioner participated in the written examination as well as the physical test. He would contend that in the provisional merit list, the name of respondent No.4 was not present and later on, in the final merit list, his name was included. He would further contend that respondent No.4 did not participate in the Physical Ability Test even though, he has been declared eligible and qualified and later on, he was selected. He would pray to quash the selection and appointment of respondent No.4. He would further pray for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for the post of Game Guard. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Singh. Mr. Sharma, 3 learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would refer to Anenxure R/1, the merit list prepared by the respondent authorities where the name of respondent No.4 appears at Serial No.15 and according to the merit list, he secured 57.95 marks out of 100, whereas, the petitioner secured 31.04 marks as per Annexure R/2. He would further submit that the petitioner after participating in the entire recruitment process has filed this petition challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No.4. He would contend that respondent No.4 was meritorious, therefore, he was selected and appointed. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. A perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 participated in the recruitment process. Respondent No.4 secured 57.95 marks, whereas, the petitioner secured 31.04 marks and thus, respondent No.4 was meritorious and his name is present in the merit list and the same is evident from Annexure R/2 filed by the State. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the appointment of respondent No.4, thus, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha