[2025:RJ-JP:48810-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 560/2025 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Government Department Of Forest, Secretariat Jaipur. 2. Head Chief Forest Conservator (HOFF), Aryanya Bhawan, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, Raj. 3. The Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Karauli, Raj. ----Appellants-Respondents Versus Dhara Singh Jat S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Jat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Post Toksi, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Swaimadhopur, Raj. ----Respondent-Petitioner For Appellant(s) : Mr.B.S.Chhaba, AAG with Mr.Hardik Singh & Ms.Mansi Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajendra Singh Gautam HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Judgment 1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 01.12.2025 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 01.12.2025 3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced 4. Date of pronouncement 05.12.2025 Per, Justice Ravi Chirania:- 1. The present appeal preferred by the appellant-respondent (State of Rajasthan, Department of Forest) (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant' for short) challenging the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11574/2016 titled as Dhara Singh Jat Vs. State of [2025:RJ-JP:48810-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-560/2025] Rajasthan & Ors., whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) was allowed. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.B.S.Chhaba submitted that learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment by solely relying upon an information provided to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2005'), by which, due to inadvertent/human error informed the marks of another candidate with the same name (Dhara Singh). Learned AAG submitted that there was no error on the part of the appellants in conducting the process and awarding of marks, however, while providing the information under the Act of 2005, the incorrect marks though recorded correctly in the official record, were informed and on that basis, the petitioner treated himself to be eligible for appointment on the post of Forest Guard under the Advertisement as issued by the State. 3. Learned AAG further submitted that the learned Single Judge did not even consider the record as produced and instead decided the writ petition solely on basis of the two informations, under the Act of 2005, dated 11.05.2016 and 20.09.2016 as provided to the petitioner. In the first communication, due to human error incorrect marks were informed, however, later on after verifying the official record, amended reply to RTI application was provided by letter dated 20.09.2016. 4. Learned AAG further submitted that this human error occurred as the two candidates were having the first two names [2025:RJ-JP:48810-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-560/2025] exactly the same, however, their surnames were different. The names of the two candidates are (i) Dhara Singh Jat S/o Ramesh Jat (petitioner herein) and (ii) Dhara Singh Chouhan S/o Madan Singh Chouhan. Learned AAG further submitted that while providing the amended information/reply dated 20.09.2016, they also admitted that the petitioner secured 90 marks in the written examination instead of 88 marks, as informed to him earlier. 5. By this averment, learned AAG submitted that the human mistake was not disputed rather admitted, which occurred on account of the fact that marks of all the candidates, who appeared in the final selection process were placed in a tabular form in which names of two persons as mentioned above were shown one after the other. By referring to the record as produced before this Court, learned AAG submitted that details of the marks of Dharan Singh Chouhan S/o Madan Singh Chouhan were shown at serial No.39 and Dharan Singh Jat S/o Ramesh Jat (petitioner) were shown at serial No.40. Just because names of the two candidates, who secured equal marks (in total), therefore, due to human error incorrect marks were informed by the first information reply dated 11.05.2016, however, the same was corrected by amended reply dated 20.09.2016. 6. Learned AAG further submitted that despite such submissions on the basis of the record, learned single judge did not consider the arguments and passed the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that at the time of passing of the interim order one post was ordered to be [2025:RJ-JP:48810-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-560/2025] kept vacant, however by that time, the selection process was over and no post was lying vacant. As far as three posts mentioned in the impugned order is concerned, learned counsel submitted that one post belongs to 'SC Woman Category' and two posts belongs to 'SC Ex-Serviceman Male Category' and, therefore, in absence of any seat of the OBC category, no appointment can be given to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of the above, learned AAG prayed that the present special appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2025 being contrary to record be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel Mr.Rajendra Gautam appearing for the petitioner strongly opposed the arguments advanced by learned Additional Advocate General. 9. This Court allowed learned counsel for the petitioner to peruse the record as produced before this Court at the time of arguments and thereafter make submissions. The matter was passed-over for sometime and was again taken up. After perusal of the record, though learned counsel again objected to the submissions of learned AAG, however, this Court did not find much force and substance. 10. This Court considered the judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned single judge and the reasoning as recorded while allowing the writ petition. This Court parallely also considered the record of the selection process, including the interview marks as awarded to the respective candidates by members of the interview panel and noted that though both the candidates were interviewed and assessed by different persons on [2025:RJ-JP:48810-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-560/2025] different dates, however, their marks were tabulated in such a manner that they appeared one after the other. These marks were tabulated from highest to lowest which shows that both the candidates i.e. the petitioner above (Dhara Singh Jat S/o Ramesh Jat) and Dhara Singh Chouhan S/o Madan Singh Chouhan were shown one after the other. 11. After going through the record of the selection process containing the interview marks, we did not find any discrepancy, however, this Court accepts the argument of learned Additional Advocate General that the entire confusion occurred due to human error committed by the person, who provided two informations to the petitioner under the Act of 2005 dated 11.05.2016 and 20.09.2016, by which it was informed that he secured average 7.75 marks in interview, i.e. by the first RTI reply dated 11.05.2016, however, later on the amended reply was given dated 20.09.2016 from which it was clarified that instead of 7.75 marks, the petitioner had actually secured 5.75 marks. On the basis of record as produced before the Court, it was noted that there is no manipulation, error, or mistake etc. in awarding and recording of marks in the official record and the present case is purely a human mistake in informing the correct marks, due to similarity of marks, the entire confusion occurred. 12. Though an interim order for keeping one post vacant was passed, however, no person less meritorious than the petitioner was appointed and further he did not secure more marks than the last candidate of the OBC Category. [2025:RJ-JP:48810-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-560/2025] 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.03.2025 is contrary to the record as produced before this Court and solely based on discrepancy between the two RTI informations, by which incorrect marks were informed due to human error, whereas there is no such mistake in the official record and the petitioner was rightly not selected as he secured 115.75 marks, which is less than the cut off marks i.e. 117 marks, therefore, the present special appeal deserved to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed. The order dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. 14. No order as to costs. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Monika/109