922 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.6739 OF 2024 SANTOSH S/O UMAJI SHEJUL VS PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (CHIEF OF FOREST FORCE), NAGPUR AND OTHERS ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Ms Bhagyashree N. Gavhale, Advocate for the petitioner (appointed) Mr.N.S. Rao, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/State ------------------------------- CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND R AJNISH R. VYAS , JJ. DATE : 30.09.2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner, having rendered services for more than five years under various schemes of the Social Forest Department, claims to be eligible for appointment to the post of ‘Forest Guard’ in terms of Clause 9.21 of the advertisement dated 08.06.2023, issued by the Forest Department for recruitment to 2138 posts of ‘Forest Guards’. 3. Such claim has been opposed by the respondents/Forest Department on the ground that Clause 9.21 contemplates appointment of 10% daily wage labourers who have worked in the Forest Department for five years, either continuously or with breaks. nd.thawre 2025:BHC-NAG:9993-DB 922 2/3 4. However, as the petitioner had worked under the Social Forest Department and not under the Forest Department, the benefit of the said clause cannot be extended to him. 5. Clause 9.21 of the advertisement dated 08.06.2023 reads thus: ^^9-21 jkstankjh etwj %& ‘kklu fu.kZ;] eglwy o oufoHkkx dzekad oue&2013@iz-dz-334@Q@&9] fnukad 16@10@2012 vUo;s oufoHkkxkrhy jkstankjh etqjkauk 10% vkj{k.k ykxw jkghy- ys[kh ijh{ksr ik= >kysY;k jkstankjh etqjkus R;kaP;k lsosckcr] ewG dkxni=kaP;k rikl.khP;k osGsl R;kauk lacaf/kr ou foHkkxkrhy mi oulaj{kd@foHkkxh; ou vf/kdkjh ;kaps izek.ki= lknj dj.ks vko’;d jkghy-** 6. From the above referred clause 9.21 of the advertisement, it is evident that there is a specific condition to have worked under the Forest Department. 7. The Government Resolution dated 16.12.2012, referred to in clause 9.21 of the advertisement, is also on record, wherein all departments, including the Forest Department, Social Forest Department, and other Forest Development Corporations, are distinctly enumerated and treated independently. 8. Thus, it is evident that the term ‘Forest Department’ used in clause 9.21 does not include the ‘Social Forest Department.’. nd.thawre 922 3/3 9. In the circumstances, though the petitioner has served under the Social Forest Department for more than five years, we are of the opinion that he is not eligible for employment under the 10% reserved category for daily- wage labourers who have worked under the Forest Department, as stipulated in clause 9.21 of the advertisement dated 08.06.2023. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 11. Fees of the appointment counsel be quantified as per the Rules. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) nd.thawre