Vikram Singh Jhala v. State of Rajasthan Ors

Judgment

1. Vikram Singh Jhala S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Jhala, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Dak Bangla Road, Kalidas Colony, Jhalawar.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretarait, Jaipur.

3. Principal Chief Forest Conservator, Van Bhawan, Vaniki Path, Jaipur

5. Deputy Conservator Forest, Jhalawar. Chief Forest Conservator, Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan Singh, Advocate with Mr. Jitendra Kumar Meena, Advocate, Mr. Bajrang Sepat, Advocate Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. MANEESH SHARMA), J 02/07/2025

1. The present special appeal has been filed by the appellant- Shri Lal Singh Gurjar (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') under the Rule 134 of High Court Rules, 1952, read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated [2025:RJ-JP:24325-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-618/2025]

28.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11624/2016 titled as "Vikram Singh Jhala Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors." (hereinafter referred to as the 'Writ Petition'), whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the appointment of the appellant (then respondent No.5-Sh. Lal Singh Gurjar) and directed the official-respondents to appoint the writ petitioner to the post of 'Forest Guard'.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent No.2-Forest Department invited applications for direct recruitment to the post of 'Forest Guard' under the Rajasthan Subordinate Forest Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2015') vide advertisement dated 16.10.2015, wherein the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1-Vikram Singh Jhala participated in the process, and after its completion, his name was placed at Serial No.1 in the waiting list.

3. Later on, it came to the knowledge of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1-Vikram Singh Jhala that one candidate namely Mr. Jitendra Gochar, whose name was placed at Serial No.10 in the General Category, did not join and refused to join vide letter dated 30.03.2016. Therefore, one post became vacant and was to be filled from the waiting list. Due to the non-joining of the candidate, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1-Vikram Singh Jhala, whose name was placed at Serial no.1 in the waiting list, ought to have been considered. But surprisingly, the official- respondents had not considered the candidature of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1-Vikram Singh Jhala. Henceforth, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1-Vikram Singh Jhala had filed the Writ Petition. [2025:RJ-JP:24325-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-618/2025]

4. In the said Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge on

30.08.2016, granted an interim order, thereby directing as follows: "Issue notice by making it returnable within four weeks. Notices may be given 'dasti', as prayed. In the meantime, respondents are restrained to make appointments ignoring merit position of the candidates."

5. Despite this interim order, the official-respondents gave the appointment to respondent No.5-Shri. Lal Singh Gurjar (the present appellant) on 31.08.2016. On gaining knowledge of the same, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1-Vikram Singh Jhala filed an application for impleadment of respondent No.5-Lal Singh Gurjar (the present appellant) as a party respondent. The said application was duly allowed vide order dated 17.07.2023, and service upon the newly impleaded respondent No.5-Lal Singh Gurjar (the present appellant) was effected on 04.08.2023. However, the said respondent did not file any response/reply to the Writ Petition.

6. The Writ Petition was finally heard and decided by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 28.04.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge, while considering the facts in detail, allowed the Writ Petition while quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent No.5-Lal Singh Gurjar (the present appellant), and directed the official-respondents to appoint the writ petitioner/respondent No.1-Vikram Singh Jhala to the post of 'Forest Guard'. [2025:RJ-JP:24325-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-618/2025]

7. Being aggrieved, the present special appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the appointment of the appellant is unsustainable in the eyes of the law because the appointment order of the appellant has been issued in accordance with the law. He further submits that due to the non-joining of Jitendra Gochar, one post remains vacant. Therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015, one Shri Sanjeev Gurjar S/o Shri Kaluram Gurjar, who secured 103.00 marks and was entitled to appointment as per merit. However, the Deputy Forest Conservator, Jhalawar vide his Letter No.6958 dated

11.04.2016 informed that Shri Sanjeev Gurjar was selected in the Indian Army, and refused to join the above post.

9. Resultantly, two candidates who obtained equal marks, being

102.50, in all categories, namely Shri. Vikram Singh Jhala and Shri. Lal Singh Gurjar remained to be selected. In such circumstances, as per the proviso (iv) to Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 30 of the Rules of 2015, the selection of candidates who secured equal marks shall be done on the basis of their date of birth, and the elder candidate shall be given preference. Therefore, the appellant-Lal Singh Gurjar was selected, but the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the aforesaid facts, which are clearly spelled out in the letter dated 16.08.2016, and passed the impugned order. [2025:RJ-JP:24325-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-618/2025]

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the caveator and perused the material available on record.

11. From the record, it is revealed that on 30.08.2016 while issuing notice to the respondents, the learned Single Judge had restrained them from making appointments ignoring the merit position of the candidates. Despite the same, the appointment order dated 31.08.2016 had been passed in favour of the appellant.

12. It is further revealed from the perusal of the record that vide order dated 09.05.2023, the learned Single Judge directed the official-respondents to apprise the Court under what circumstances, they had offered appointment to a person whose name was not reflected in the reserve merit list. Despite the said direction, neither any explanation nor any supportive document were submitted or produced by the official-respondents before the Court.

13. From the record of the case it is also reflected that, despite service of notice effected on 04.08.2023, the appellant herein has neither filed any response/reply to the Writ Petition nor filed any alleged amended waiting list to substantiate his arguments. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant herein never assailed the select list or the waiting list by taking the remedies available under the law.

14. That it is trite that no candidate beyond the ones falling within the select list or the waiting list can even have a right of consideration. The appellant's name neither formed part of the select list nor the waiting list, the arguments put forth with [2025:RJ-JP:24325-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-618/2025] regards to the proviso (iv) to the Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 30 of the Rules of 2015 are based on speculations and are contrary to well settled law, therefore lack merit.

15. The attempt of the appellant to climb the ladder upwards, based on incorrect foundation of law and speculations, cannot be permitted in as much as it would bring to fore all those candidates who were beyond the select list or waiting list, thus the practice and procedure adopted by the official-respondents in issuing order for appointment in favour of the appellant was contrary to well settled proposition of law.

16. Further, bare perusal of the impugned order clearly demonstrates that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as all the aspects relevant for adjudication of the dispute were considered and the appointment order was mainly quashed on the premise that the name of the appellant was never included in the select list or in the waiting list, whereas the name of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1-Vikram Singh Jhala was at Serial No.1 in the waiting list. Therefore, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1- Vikram Singh Jhala is entitled to be appointed to the post of 'Forest Guard'.

17. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any arbitrariness, perversity or violative of any principles of natural justice. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:24325-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-618/2025]

18. The stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ Seema/250