AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying for the following reliefs :-
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that by this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction :-
(i) the respondent State Authority may kindly be directed to interview the petitioner for the post of Forester (Vanpal) in pursuance of the advertised vacancy dated 26-10-2015 (Annex 1) and;
(ii) the respondent State Authority may kindly be directed to provide appointment with, all consequential benefits, to the petitioner on the post of Forester (Vanpal) if he secure the requisites merit from the date when less meritorious candidates then the petitioner was granted appointment.
(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be made in favour of the petitioners."
In the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4390/2016, this Court passed the following order on 25.11.2016 :-
"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking directions to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners, allow them to participate in the further selection process i.e. call them for interview and appoint them on the post of Forest Guard.
Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the petitioners herein in fact had not applied for the post of Forest Guard and had applied for the post of Forester and on that account the petitioners are not entitled to grant of any relief by this Court as the allegations made in the petition are contrary to the facts. Though an interim order was also passed by this Court for taking the interviews of the petitioners for the post of ''Forest Guard'', which order besides the facts that interviews were already over, could not be followed by the respondents.
A perusal of the writ petition clearly indicates that the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents are correct, however, looking to the fact that the petitioners are all residents of Scheduled Area and apparently the mistake in seeking relief for the post of Forest Guard has been claimed on account of copying of similar writ petitions without application of mind, it would be unjust to the petitioners in case they are deprived of the relief on account of the somebody else''s mistake. In similar writ petitions lead by S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4387/2016 : Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided today itself, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein have been allowed with the following directions:-
"In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners except qua petitioners Neeta Patidar and Vaibhav Chouhan are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners, who have been interviewed by the respondents pursuant to the directions of this Court and have been awarded marks, for 22 unreserved posts lying vacant at Pratapgarh Range and 9 unreserved posts lying vacant at Udaipur Range, in accordance with what has been indicated hereinbefore. It is made clear that the appointments already made pursuant to the advertisement other than 22 and 9 unreserved posts shall not be affected on account of this order by this Court. It is also made clear that the petitioners, who have been interviewed and presently are not falling within the cut off marks would also be considered based on the fresh cut off which would be arrived at by the respondents after the said 22 & 9 posts are included for the purpose of consideration. It goes without saying that the applicants Arvind Labana & others would also be considered alongwith other eligible petitioners for the 22 & 9 vacant posts."
However, learned counsel for the respondent State submits that except for two posts, under the directions of this Court of different categories, none of the post of Forestor is vacant and as the petitioners have not impleaded the selected candidates as party respondents to the present writ petition, they are not entitled to any relief.
In view of the above, subject to any post of the category to which the petitioners belong being vacant, the present writ petition is also allowed in light of the judgment in the case of Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan & Others (supra) with similar directions.
It is further directed that only in case any post of the category to which the petitioners belong is still vacant, the petitioners shall be interviewed for the post of Forestors and, thereafter, the directions as indicated hereinbefore shall be applied to the cases of petitioners also."
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the person lesser meritorious than the petitioner has been given appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that two more persons have been given appointment having lower merit than the petitioner in the same category in the written examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that on receiving information under R.T.I. Act, the petitioner found that the petitioner was falling in merit and secured much higher marks than the persons who have been granted appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition has itself recorded that due to the mistake of counsel, the petitioner could not participate in the interview.
Learned counsel for the respondents states that the order of this Court dated 25.11.2016, as reproduced above, directed for consideration of the petitioner only in case of any post of the category to which the petitioner belongs was vacant. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that not a single post for the category to which the petitioner belonged was vacant and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been given appointment. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that since the terms were clear in the order dated 25.11.2016 itself, therefore, no appointment could be given.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that this Court has already taken a view in the same matter of the petitioner in the previous writ petition that the petitioner''s consideration shall be made only in case any post of the category of which the petitioner belongs, is vacant. In light of the categoric statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents that after the order dated 25.11.2016, no post in the category to which the petitioner belongs was vacant. Under such circumstances, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. Hence, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed