Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sardool Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 April, 2024
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3954/2023
1. Hanuman Singh S/o Shri Kumbh Singh, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Bhati Ki Dhani, Naneu, Tehsil Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Vinod Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Birbal Singh Shekhawat,
Aged About 42 Years, R/o 627 Sallaji Ki Dhani, Village
And Post Rajnota, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Chatar Singh S/o Shri Khushal Singh, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Village Dedhan Chak 3, Post Hapa, Tehsil
Balesar, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Narender Kumar S/o Shri Misha Ram, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Village Balagi Nagar, Post Ubasi, Tehsil Jayal,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
5. Ravindra S/o Shri Mamraj, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Village Keshripura, Post Baragaon, Tehsil Udaipurwati,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
6. Satyendra Kumar S/o Shri Sher Singh, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Kankra Post Barrod, Tehsil Behror, District
Alwar, Rajasthan.
7. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Satbir Singh, Aged About 40
Years, R/o House No 18, Ridhi Sidhi Nagar V, Bada Rama
Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (2 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3300/2023
1. Anop Singh Bhati S/o Shri Ganga Singh Bhati, Aged About
45 Years, Samrau, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Chail Singh Rathore S/o Shri Jabar Singh Rathore, Aged
About 40 Years, Village Vpo Betwasia, Tehsil Osian,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Mahipal Singh S/o Shri Dalpat Singh, Aged About 38
Years, Veer Durgadas Nagar, Bhakhri, Post Dhelana,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Ramkaran Pichkiya S/o Shri Gopa Ram, Aged About 38
Years, Khangta Pichkiyo Ka Bas, Khangta District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
5. Sumunder Singh Rathore S/o Shri Bhanwer Singh
Rathore, Aged About 42 Years, P.no. 17 Kh No. 52 Prem
Nagar Digari Kallan, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. Mool Singh S/o Shri Jaswant Kishore Singh, Aged About
41 Years, Village Abhay Garh, Setrawa, Tehsil Dechu,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
7. Ramprakash S/o Shri Koja Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
Lamba, District Jodhpur. At Present P.no. 21 Shreeram
Nagar, Near Aditya Public School, Jhalamand Choraya,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
8. Bheru Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh, Aged About 46 Years,
Village Sodho Ki Dhani, Dalpat Nagar, Khirja Khass, Tehsil
Shergarh, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
9. Aam Singh Bhati S/o Shri Dungar Singh, Aged About 34
Years, Near Gas Godam Dholabala, Phalodi, Tehsil
Phalodi, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
10. Shambhu Singh S/o Shri Dungar Singh, Aged About 39
Years, Vpo Deriya Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
11. Bagta Ram Jat S/o Shri Rupa Ram Jat, Aged About 45
Years, Narayanpura, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
12. Nanak Ram Jani S/o Shri Mohan Ram, Aged About 39
Years, Janiyo Ki Dhani, Thob, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (3 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
13. Subhash Chandra S/o Shri Sultan Singh, Aged About 36
Years, Dhani Jodhawali, Post Hod, Tehsil Khandela,
District Sikar, Rajasthan.
14. Inder Singh Bhati S/o Shri Budh Singh Bhati, Aged About
46 Years, Vpo Solankiya Tala, Tehsil Shergarh, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3757/2023
1. Narayan Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
Village Ishru, Tehsil Bapini, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Pancha Ram, Aged About 43 Years,
Village Kelansar, Tehsil Ghantiyali, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
3. Gopal Singh S/o Shri Chen Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
Daroga Ka Bas, Rasliyawas, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
4. Shravan Singh S/o Shri Abhay Singh, Aged About 38
Years, Village Kagal, Post Bhundana, Tehsil Pipar City,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Kesa Ram S/o Shri Mala Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
Village Bawari, Post Sekhala Tehsil Shergarh, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. Raju Singh Khichi S/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 49
Years, Village Asaranada (Salwan Kallan), Post Jaleli
Nayala, Tehsil Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
7. Iadana Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Ram, Aged About 47 Years,
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (4 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
Village Doodoli, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
8. Koja Ram S/o Shri Kistur Ram Jat, Aged About 39 Years,
Village And Post Surpura Khurd, Tehsil Bhopalgarh,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
9. Pappu Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
Village Salwa Kallan (Asaranada), Post Salwa Kallan,
Tehsil Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
10. Pradeep Choudhary S/o Shri Dhagala Ram Bhaliya, Aged
About 36 Years, Village And Post Boyal, Tehsil Pipar City,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
11. Ram Prakesh Benda S/o Shri Ram Bux, Aged About 46
Years, Vpo Ratkuria, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
12. Ramjiwan Dedar S/o Shri Pusa Ram, Aged About 38
Years, 81/116, Laxman Nagar A, Near Jupiter School,
Ramjan Hatta, Banar Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
13. Chatur Singh S/o Shri Madho Ram, Aged About 47 Years,
Plot No. 23/90, Laxman Nagar A, Ramjan Hatta, Banar
Road, Nandri, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
14. Ram Niwas S/o Shri Mohan Ram, Aged About 44 Years,
Village Malar, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
15. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Sugna Ram, Aged About 46 Years,
Village Lawari, Post Siyara, Tehsil Pipar City, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
16. Raju Ram Raliya S/o Shri Kesa Ram, Aged About 36
Years, Village Lawari, Post Siyara, Tehsil Pipar City,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
17. Bhallaram S/o Shri Deva Ram, Aged About 45 Years,
Village Jawasiya, Post Riyan Sethaki, Tehsil Pipar City,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
18. Harkesh Singh S/o Shri Rajender Singh, Aged About 42
Years, Vpo Banethi, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
19. Sajjan Singh S/o Shri Jabar Singh, Aged About 40 Years,
Vpo Ramasani, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (5 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
20. Prem Singh S/o Shri Arjun Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
Vpo Kheri Salwa, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4698/2023
1. Sardool Singh S/o Shri Nakshtra Singh, Aged About 42
Years, Ward No. 11, 1 Md, Meharwala, Tehsi Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Krishan Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Jai Singh Yadav, Aged
About 37 Years, Vpo Toolera, Tehsil Alwar, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
3. Deewan Singh S/o Shri Ramghoroshi, Aged About 38
Years, Village Chaproli, Post Jalalpur Maniya, District
Dholpur, Rajasthan.
4. Hasam Khan S/o Shri Noor Jamal Khan, Aged About 38
Years, House No. 302, Village Dhani Lal Khan, Post
Deidas, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
5. Rambeer Singh S/o Shri Karan Singh, Aged About 37
Years, Garhi Zalim Singh, Post Jharoli, Tehsil Bharatpur,
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
6. Gulab Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Ashu Singh Shekhawat,
Aged About 40 Years, Plot No. 73, Pratap Nagar, Kalward
Road, Govdinpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Prashant Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About
39 Years, Village Barrod, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (6 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
8. Raish Chander Dhaka S/o Shri Suraj Bhan, Aged About 37
Years, Village Nohar Post Nohar, Ward No. 30 Indira
Colony, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
9. Sukhdeep Singh S/o Shri Mandar Singh, Aged About 43
Years, Chak 1P.s.d.(B), Vpo 5 P.s.d(A) Tehsil Ralwa Mandi,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
10. Jaipal Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
Ward No. 27,. Behind Gogameri, Subhashpura, Bikaner,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
11. Sangram Ram S/o Shri Jora Ram, Aged About 41 Years,
Village Sewaki Kalla, Tehsil And District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4780/2023
1. Bhanwar Singh Bhati S/o Khet Singh, Aged About 43
Years, Vpo Shaitan Singh Nagar, Tehsil Lahawat, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Prem Singh S/o Bhinva Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
Nimbo Ka Gaon, Nawalsar Jiya Beri, Tehsil Shergarh,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Vikram Singh S/o Malu Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Plot
No.10, Opposite Sharma Ice Cream Factory, Soor Sagar
Police Station Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Prahlad Singh Rathore S/o Anop Singh Rathore, Aged
About 38 Years, Vpo Chhapara, Tehsil Ladnun, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (7 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
5. Shishpal Singh S/o Sunda Ram Haritwal, Aged About 38
Years, Vpo Govati, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
6. Subhash Singh S/o Bhagirath Singh, Aged About 39
Years, Village Thithawata Piran, Tehsil Fatehpura, District
Sikar, Rajasthan.
7. Bhoopendra Singh S/o Veerendra Singh, Aged About 40
Years, Bakhatpura, Post Fatehpur, Tehsil Masalpur, District
Karauli, Rajasthan.
8. Amit Kumar Jakhar S/o Madan Lal Jakhar, Aged About 39
Years, Vpo Mahansar, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
9. Charan Singh S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 42 Years, Village
Mandasi, Via Mukundgarh, Tehsil Nawagarh, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
10. Altaf Khan S/o Rasul Khan, Aged About 42 Years, Vpo
Kuchera, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan
11. Ashok Kumar Saini S/o Budh Ram Saini, Aged About 40
Years, Village And Post Bajawa (Rawatka), Tehsil
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan
12. Kuldeep Singh S/o Ruldu Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
Ward No.2 Vpo Makkasar Gali No.3, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
13. Subhash Chandra Pilania S/o Hari Singh Pilania, Aged
About 41 Years, Vpo Beri, Tehsil Sikar, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
14. Naresh Chand Sharma S/o Ram Dayal Sharma, Aged
About 41 Years, Village Nagla Chitar, Post Uchchain, Tehsil
Rupbas, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
15. Baljinder Singh S/o Sukhpal Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
Vpo Nathawan, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
16. Ajay Pal Singh S/o Jay Ram Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
Durga Colony, Ondela Road Near Lic Office Dholpur,
Rajasthan
17. Rajvir S/o Ram Sahay, Aged About 39 Years, Village
Kuseda Gujran, Tehsil Maniya, District Dholpur, Rajasthan
18. Ramkesh S/o Jagannath Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (8 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
Village Shekhpur, (Gujran) Post Lalpur, Tehsil Rajakhera,
District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
19. Shishupal Singh S/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 49 Years,
Village Basera Ki Dhani, Post Lalpur, Tehsil Malsisar,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
20. Banwari Lal S/o Bega Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Village
Amarpura, Post Amarpura, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District
Sikar, Rajasthan.
21. Suresh Chand S/o Subedar Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
Village Ghari Jawahar, Post Vintipura, Tehsil Dholpur,
District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
22. Jaiprakash S/o Mahavir Prasad, Aged About 39 Years, Vpo
Bugala, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
23. Mukha Ram Dhayal S/o Arjun Ram, Aged About 43 Years,
Village Charaka Bas, (Dhayalo Ki Dhani), Post
Parasarampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
24. Sumer Singh Achra S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 37
Years, Village Govindpura, Post Phooskani, Tehsil
Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
25. Ganesh Ram Patel S/o Binja Aram Patel, Aged About 49
Years, Village Diwandi, Post Diwandi, Tehsil Rohat, District
Pali, Rajasthan.
26. Madan Singh S/o Surjan Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
Village Ginri Patta Rajpura, Post Indra Pura, Tehsil Churu,
District Churu, Rajasthan.
27. Budha Ram S/o Dhura Ram Beniwal, Aged About 44
Years, Village Madaniyon Ki Dhani, Post Panchala Sidha,
Tehsil Khinwsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (9 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4784/2023
1. Parema Ram S/o Jumer Ram, Aged About 37 Years, Vpo
Jakhera, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Ammi Lal S/o Phoola Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Village
Singnor, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
3. Suwa Lal Jat S/o Sunda Ram Jat, Aged About 50 Years,
Ward No.9 Vpo Chhapoli, Tehsil - District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
4. Satnam Singh Hear S/o Harjinder Singh Hear, Aged About
35 Years, Ghudhuwala (37 Gg), Tehsil Padampur, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5103/2023
1. Prakash Chandra Sain S/o Shri Shankerlal, Aged About 49
Years, 75, Veer Teja Colony, Near Indane Gas Godown,
Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Bishnun Singh S/o Shri Daloo Singh, Aged About 42
Years, Vpo Nagla Dulhekhan, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur,
Rajasthan.
3. Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 39
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (10 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
Years, Village Jatuwas, Post Kilri, Tehsil Rajgarh, District
Churu, Rajasthan.
4. Sarwan Singh Rathore S/o Shri Sawai Singh Rathore,
Aged About 40 Years, Gurudwara Gali, Near Rajput
Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Bajarang Singh Rathore S/o Shri Paboo Singh, Aged
About 38 Years, Village Lona, Post Badabar, Tehsil
Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff) Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5542/2023
1. Mukesh Gurjar S/o Shri Jagdeesh Prasad Gurjar, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Village Sabalpura, Post Jeerota
Khurd, Tehsil Lawan, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
2. Kripa Shankar Gurjar S/o Shri Kazod Mal Gurjar, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Plot No. B 13 A, Ward No. 2 Nand
Gaon Colony, Fudha Katla Road Bandikui, Tehsil Baswa,
District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (11 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5986/2023
1. Bhagirath Singh Rathore S/o Shri Madan Singh Rathore,
Aged About 49 Years, R/o Plot No. 590/b New Bjs Colony,
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Shiv Singh S/o Shri Amrat Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Village Babu Singh Ka Pura, Post Virondha, Tehsil
Maniya, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Forest, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6006/2023
1. Geega Ram S/o Shri Ganpat Ram, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Vpo- Lachhari, Via- Didwana, Tehsil - Ladnun, District
- Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Deva Ram S/o Shri Achla Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Village - Isharnavra, Post - Birloka, Tehsil - Khinwsar,
District - Nagaur, Rajasthan.
3. Goda Ram S/o Shri Pratap Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/
o Vpo - Banwal, Tehsil - Parbatsar, District - Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (12 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal, Chef Conservator Of Forest (Hoff) Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6066/2023
1. Hari Ram S/o Jagdish Ram, Aged About 46 Years, Village
Padan, Satheran, Tehsil Nagaur, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
2. Ashok Kumar Nain S/o Ganpat Ram Nain, Aged About 39
Years, Village Saisar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
3. Rajesh Kumar Khedar S/o Ram Kumar Singh Khedar,
Aged About 49 Years, Vpo Jakhal, Tehsil Nawalgarh,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
4. Poonam Chand S/o Rera Ram, Aged About 44 Years,
Village Pabuthal, Post Satheran, Tehsil Nagaur, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (13 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6406/2023
1. Arun Singh Rathore S/o Mahendra Singh Rathore, Aged
About 37 Years, Village Khojas, Tehsil Didwana, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Shivram Gurjar S/o Ram Kishore Gurjar, Aged About 41
Years, Village Bhaglai, Post Ralawata, Tehsil Dausa,
District Dausa, Rajasthan.
3. Man Singh Rajpoot S/o Bheem Singh, Aged About 40
Years, Village Malikpur, Post Barehmori, Tehsil Dholpur,
District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
4. Rajendra S/o Ram Niwas, Aged About 37 Years, Plot No-
30 Kh No.243, Ganapati Nagar, Jhopadi Road,
Khokhariya, Post Banar, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6965/2023
1. Surendra Singh S/o Shri Shankar Singh, Aged About 41
Years, Plot No. 7, Amit Colony, Jaipur Road, Bikaner,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Parma Ram Jat S/o Shri Jetha Ram Jat, Aged About 38
Years, Vilalge Narma, Post Bhakri, Tehsil Parbatsar,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (14 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7699/2023
1. Ram Kishore S/o Shri Bhera Ram, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Vpo- Kuri, Tehsil- Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Ram Chandra Riyad S/o Shri Ratana Ram, Aged About 47
Years, R/o Vpo- Mayapur, Tehsil- Parbatsar , District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan-State, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Cionservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajastahn Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10450/2023
Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Norang Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Village Basri, Post Dhakamandi, Tehsil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (15 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Forest, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.L. Deora with Ms. Dimple Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG.
Mr. Manish Patel, AAG.
Mr. B.S. Sandhu, with
Mr. Chirag Kalani.
Mr. Shashank Joshi for
Mr. Rajeev Purohit.
Mr. Priyanshu Gopa for
Mr. Vinit Sanadhya.
Mr. Trilok Singh.
Mr. Manvendra Singh Bhati.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Judgment
Reportable
Reserved on 09/04/2024
Pronounced on 24/04/2024
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy
though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore,
for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts
and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (16 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3757/2023, while treating the same as a
lead case; rival submissions of the parties and the observations of
the Court, in the present judgment, would also be based,
particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.
2. The prayer clauses read as under:-
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that
this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed:-
A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned
Para 7 (x) of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and rule
19(2) (b) & (c) Rajasthan forest subordinate rules 2015
states about the standard of Physical efficiency test for man
including Ex-servicemen category irrespective of
age/category in pursuance of the advertisement dated
11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and Corrigendum advertisement
11.03.2022 (Annex-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any
verbal/written order denying the selection of the petitioners
on the post of Forest Guard in reference to Para 7 ( [k) o (x)
of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and rule 19(2)(b) &
(c) Rajasthan forest subordinate rules 2015 states about the
standard of Physical efficiency test for man including Ex-
servicemen category irrespective of age/category in
pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2)
and Corrigendum advertisement dated 11.03.2022 (Annex-
3) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners
in the further process of selection for the post of Forest
Guard by providing relaxation to the ex-servicemen in
pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2)
and Corrigendum advertisement 11.03.2022 (Annex-3).
D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Para 7 ( [k) o
(x) of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and rule 19(2)(b)
& (c) Rajasthan forest subordinate rules 2015 states about
the standard of Physical efficiency test for man including Ex-
servicemen made applicable for ex-servicemen be kindly
relaxed to the extend to fulfill the reserved posts for ex-
servicemen to achieve the legislative goal in connection of
reservation provided to ex-servicemen in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and
Corrigendum advertisement 11.03.2022 (Annex-3).
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (17 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
E. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents
may kindly be directed to grant the appointment to the
petitioners by relaxing Para 7 ([k) o (x) of the advertisement
dated 11.11.2020 and rule 19(2)(b) & (c) Rajasthan forest
subordinate rules 2015 states about Physical efficiency test
for man including Ex-servicemen made applicable for ex-
servicemen for the post of forest guard with all consequential
benefits in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020
(Annex-2) and corrigendum advertisement 11.03.2022
(Annex-3).
F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of
the petitioners.
G. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed
with costs."
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioners, are that the respondents issued an
advertisement No.04/2020 dated 11.11.2020 whereby
applications were invited for recruitment of Forester and Forest
Guard; in pursuance of the same, the petitioners being retired
from the Armed Forces were eligible under the category of Ex-
serviceman for the said post, thereby filed an online application
for the post in question. Thereafter, the respondents further
published a detailed corrigendum advertisement dated 11.03.2022
increasing total number of posts.
3.1. Subsequently, the examination for the post of Forest Guard
(post in question) was conducted and the result for written
examination was declared on 26.01.2023 wherein the petitioners
names were included making them eligible for Physical Efficiency
Test (PET), whereafter the petitioners submitted representations
to the respondents requesting to relax the Rules/conditions as
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (18 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
regards the PET qua the petitioners, however the same is yet to
be responded. Aggrieved by the inaction on part of the
respondents, the petitioners have preferred the present writ
petitions claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the
reservation policy for Ex-servicemen, the same is governed by the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1988') and Rajasthan
Civil Services (Absorption of Ex Servicemen) (Amendment) Rules,
2018 and the subsequent Amendment 2020 whereby 12.5%
reservation was given to the Ex-serviceman category, however,
the respondent department in absolute contravention of the legal
intent of the legislation did not provide relaxation in the Physical
Efficiency Test.
4.1. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court
towards Rule 18A inserted in the Rules of 1988 by amendment
vide notification dated 17.04.2018, and the relevant portion of
said Rule 18A reads as under:
"18A. Concessions.- Following concessions shall be allowed
to the ex-servicemen for making them eligible for
employment:-
(i) & (ii) . . . . . .
(iii) physical fitness or physical test parameters wherever
prescribed for selection to any post such parameters shall be
relaxed appropriately by the State Government."
4.1.1. Learned counsel laid much emphasis on the word
"appropriately, as occurring in the afore-quoted Rule 18A, stating
that the respondents were under an obligation to grant
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (19 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
appropriate relaxation in the physical efficiency test, qua the ex-
servicemen, in the recruitment process in question.
4.2. It was further submitted that as per the advertisement dated
11.11.2020, the standard of Physical Efficiency was to be for all
candidates including ex-serviceman/sehariya of Bara District and
ST and SC/ST category of Scheduled areas, thus the act of
respondents in fixing criteria at par even for ex-serviceman and
other category with general candidates without giving due
consideration to the age factor of the ex-servicemen is unjustified
in law. The relevant portion of the said advertisement dated
11.11.2020 is reproduced as hereinbelow:
"7. ik=rk ,oa "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk %&
.. ..
"kkjhfjd ekin.M ,oa n{krk ijh{k.k %&
.. ..
(x) ou j{kd ds in ij lh/kh HkrhZ ds fdlh vH;FkhZ dks "kkjhfjd n{krk ds
fuEufyf[kr ekieku Hkh izkIr djus gksaxs A vH;FkhZ vius Lo;a ds tksf[ke ij
"kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{k.k ds fy, mifLFkr gksaxs A
iq:'kksa ds fy,
en Ekkieku
1- flV&vil
2- fddzsV ckWy Qsad (Fkzks) 55 ehVj
efgyksvksa ds fy,
en Ekkieku
1- [kM+h yEch dwn 1-35 ehVj
2- (LVSf.Max czkM tEIl)
3- xksyk Qsad 4-5 ehVj
4- ("kkWV iqV) (4 fd- xzk-)
'kkjhfjd n{krk ds ;s ekieku HkwriwoZ lSfud dkfeZdksa@ckjka ftys esa fuokl
dj jgs lgfj;k vH;fFkfZ;ksa vkSj tutkfr mi vk;kstuk {ks= ds vuq-tk-
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (20 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
@vuq-tu-tk- vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lfEefyr djrs gq, leLr izoxksZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa
ij ykxw gksaxsA
flV& vil ds fy, vH;FkhZ viuh ihB ds cy ysVsxk] V[kuksa dks Fkkeus ds
fy, lgkjs ds lkFk mldh Vkaxs iw.kZ:i ls ruh gks vkSj vius mijh 'kjhj
dks mBk;sxkA mBkrs le; vius mijh 'kjhj dks 90 fMdzh rd mBk;sxk
¼'kjhj dks tehu ds lkFk yEcor djrs gq,½ mldh Vkaxs mBuh ugha pkfg,A
[kM+h yEch dwn ¼LVSf.Max ozkM tEil½ ds fy, vH;FkhzZ fLFkj n'kk ¼fcuk nkSM+
yxk;s½ ls dwnsxk vkSj dwnus o Vsd yxkrs le; Hkh nksuksa Vkaxksa dks
lkFk&lkFk j[ksxkA "
4.3. Learned counsel also drew attention of this Court towards
para 10 of the advertisement in question, which reads as under:
"10- HkwriwoZ lSfudksa gsrq%& ¼d½ HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds vkfJrksa dks HkwriwoZ lSfudksa
ds vkjf{kr inksa dk ykHk ns; ugha gksxkA
¼[k½ HkwriwoZ lSfud %&
¼a1½ izfrj{kk ¼Fky] ty] ok;q lsuk½ lsokvksa ls lsokeqfDr ds le; vkosnd dk
pfj= "vPNk" ls de ugha gksuk pkfg;s tSlk fd mldh lsokeqfDr esa
n'kkZ;k x;k gksA
¼2½ izfrj{kk lsok ls lsokeqfDr ds i'pkr fdlh vkosnd dk pfj= ,slk gksuk
pkfg;s tks mls fu;kstu ds fy, vgZd cuk nsA
HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dks vkj{k.k jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dk
vkesyu½ fu;e 1988 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds fy, 12-5
izfr'kr in vkjf{kr gSA HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds inksa dk vkj{k.k {kSfrt
¼Horizontal½ :i ls gS vFkkZr vkosnd ftl oxZ ¼lkekU; oxZ@vkfFkZd :i
ls detksj oxZ@ vuqlwfpr tkfr@ vuqlwfpr tutkfr@ fiNM+k oxZ@ vfr
fiNM+k oxZ½ dk miyC/k gksxk mls mlh oxZ ds vUrxZr lek;ksftr fd;k
tk,xkA mi;qDr HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dh vuqiyC/krk ds dkj.k bu inksa dks
fu;ekuqlkj lkekU; izfdz;k ls Hkjk tk ldsxkA HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds fy;s
dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk dzekad ,Q-5¼18½ dkfeZd@d&2@84 ikVZ&AA
fnukad 17-04-2018 ds vuqlkj izko/kku Hkh ykxw gksaxsA bl vf/klwpuk ds
vuqlkj dksbZ HkwriwoZ lSfud lsokfuo`r gks x;k gS ;k vkxkeh ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj
lsokfuo`r gks jgk gS] l{ke izkf/kdkjh ls izkIr fujk{ksi izek.k i= ¼,u-vks-lh-½
ds vk/kkj ij vius isa'ku vftZr djus ds i'pkr in ds fy;s vkosnu djus
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (21 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
dk ik= gksxk] fdUrq mls lewfpr p;u vfHkdj.k dks lsokfuo`fRr izek.k i=
izLrqr djuk gksxk%&
2- lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls igys tgka fyf[kr ijh{kk vkSj lk{kkRdkj ds
ek/;e ls p;u fd;k tkrk gSA
3- fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls igys tgka dsoy fyf[kr
ijh{kk ;k dsoy lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls p;u fd;k tkuk gS] tSlk Hkh ekeyk
gksA
Li"Vhdj.k %& dkfeZd foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 21-05-2019 ds vuwlkj tc
fdlh lSfud }kjk dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/kflwpuk fnukad 17-04-2018 ds rgr
fdlh in gsrq vkosnu fd;k tkrk gS rks ,sls HkwriwoZ lSfud ds lac/k esa ;fn
mldk lsok fuo`fRr vkns'k tkjh gks pqdk gS vkSj mlds }kjk izLrqr fd;k
tkrk gSA ftlesa lsokfuo`fRr dh frfFk ¼pkgs Hkfo";orhZ gh gks½ dk Li"V
mYys[k gks] rks fyf[kr ijh{kk@eq[; ijh{kk@ lk{kkRdkj@nLrkost lR;kiu
tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks dh frfFk rd lsokfuo`fRr vkns'k izLrqr dj fn;s tkus ij
mls lsokfuo`fRr dk izek.k i= ekuk tkosxk rFkk bl vk/kkj ij vkosnd dks
HkwriwoZ lSfud Js.kh ds ykHk nS; gksaxsA bl vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr
izkf/kdkjh ,sls ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u dj muds lsokeqfDr dh frfFk rd
dk;Zxzg.k vof/k esa f'kfFkyu iznku dj ldrk gSA ;fn fdlh dkj.ko'k
HkwriwoZ lSfud dk;Zxzg.k ugha djrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr dk fu;ekuqlkj lkekU;
izfdz;k ds vuqlkj Hkjk tkosxk vkSj fjfDr;ksa dh leku la[;k vxys HkrhZ o"kZ
esa vxzuhr dh tk;sxh rFkk rRi'pkr ,slh fjfDr;ka O;ixr ¼ Lapse½ gks
tkosxhA "
4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that relaxation for the
category of Ex-serviceman has previously been given in physical
Efficiency Test of the police department and thus not doing the
same for the post in question was discriminatory in nature.
4.5. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
(a) State of Orissa Vs. Mohd. Yunus & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.
5099 of 1993, decided on 17.09.1993).
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (22 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
(b) Avni Prakash Vs National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors. (Civil
Appeal No.7000 of 2021 decided on 23.11.2021);
(c) National Testing Agency Vs Vaishanavi Vijay Bhopale & Ors.
(Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17027/2021, decided on
12.11.2021);
(d) The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (Civil
Appeal Nos. 8822-8823 of 2022, decided on 12.12.22);
(e) State of Rajasthan Vs Gopi Kishan Sen AIR 1992 SC 1754;
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents,
while opposing the submissions so made on behalf of the
petitioners, submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned
advertisement dated 11.11.2020 makes it clear that paragraph 7
thereof provided for Physical Efficiency and physical measurement
however, no provision for relaxation qua Ex-servicemen is
provided in the same and the petitioners despite having full
knowledge of the same applied for the post in question pursuant
to the said advertisement.
5.1. It was further submitted that the petitioners have already
cleared the written examination and it was only prior to
conducting of the Physical Efficiency Test that the present writ
petitions were filed, thus once the petitioners had already
accepted the conditions set out in the advertisement, they could
not later on lay challenge to a particular part/conditions of the
selection process.
5.2. It was also submitted that Rule 18-A of the Rules of 1988
provides for grant of relaxation to the extent of 5% in the
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (23 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
minimum qualifying marks to pass the examination in individual
paper or in aggregate, and the said relaxation had already been
granted in the written qualifying examination and availed by the
petitioners.
5.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the physical
Efficiency Test under the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service
Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred as to 'Rules of 2015') conducted
for the post in question is just a qualifying examination and not
the one for determination of merit as is the case under the
Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989; moreover, Rule
19 of Rules of 2015 provides for physical efficiency and physical
fitness test and for the post in question physical fitness plays a
vital role in discharging of duties, thus relaxation cannot be
claimed as a matter of right and even as per Rule 18A inserted
vide notification dated 17.04.2018 in the Rules of 1988, the
requisite parameters to be relaxed had been left at the discretion
of the Government.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents,
through impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7699/2023, submitted that the physical
efficiency test had already been conducted and the candidates
having achieved the desired results, out of total number of posts
i.e. 766 for Ex-servicemen, about 400 Ex-servicemen have already
cleared the physical test. As per learned counsel, Rule 19 of the
Rules of 2015, provides for no relaxation for the Ex-servicemen
category.
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (24 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the validity
of Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 had already been upheld by the
Coordinated Bench of this Hon'ble Court in case of Kheta Ram
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (D.B. Civil Writ No.
4938/2016, & other connected matters decided on
07.12.2016).
7.1. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Anupal Singh & Ors. Vs State of U.P. (2020) 2 SCC 173 and
Union of India & Ors. Vs N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25.
8. In rejoinder submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that as per Rule 18 A of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Absorption of Ex Servicemen) (Amendment) Rules 2018 with the
use of word 'appropriately', it is clearly indicated therein that the
State Government should have given relaxation in the Physical
Efficiency Test. In furtherance, it was submitted that Rule 52 of
the Rules of 2015 provides for power to relax the rules wherein
the Administrative Department of the Government may relax the
rule relating to the age or requirement of experience for the
recruitment process, if it is necessary or causing undue hardship
in any particular case.
8.1. In furtherance, it was submitted that the State of Rajasthan
brought a specific amendment in the Rules of 1988, by inserting
Rule 18A in the said Rules, in the year 2018, making the Rules of
1988 as a special set of Rules, inasmuch as the newly added Rule
18A, in no uncertain terms, provides that physical fitness or
physical test parameters wherever prescribed for selection to any
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (25 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
post, such parameters shall be relaxed appropriately by the State
Government; whereas Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015, as harped
upon by the respondents, is a general provision, thus precedence
should be given to the special Rules i.e. Rules of 1988 (as
amended).
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
10. This Court observes that the petitioners who are ex-
servicemen applied for the post of Forest Guard in pursuance of
the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and were declared successful
for appearing in the Physical Efficiency Test, whereafter, since the
petitioners were not extended the relaxation in question, they
have challenged Rule 19 (2) (b) (c) of Rules of 2015 and the
aforesaid advertisements for not being providing with relaxation in
the Physical Efficiency Test.
11. This Court further observes that the interim order dated
24.04.2023 has been passed in one of the connected matters i.e.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4784/2023 wherein though the interim
order was passed, it was directed that the outcome of the ex-
servicemen category pertaining to Non-TSP area shall not be
declared by the respondents without prior permission of this
Court, however the liberty was given to respondents to go ahead
with Physical Efficiency Test in pursuance of the advertisement in
question.
12. This Court further observes that the advertisement in
question issued for the post in question is governed by the Rules
of 2015 and the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted in
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (26 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 for all the candidates
who appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test. The said Rule is
reproduced as hereunder:
"19. Physical Fitness and Physical Efficiency Test.-
(1) ..........
These standards of physical efficiency shall apply to
candidates of all categories including Ex-Service Personnel /
Saharia candidates residing in Baran District & SC/ST
candidates of Tribal sub-plan area.
....................."
12.1. This Court also observes that a bare perusal of the afore-
quoted Rule makes it evident that there exists no relaxation with
regard to category of Ex-serviceman and the said Rule states that
the test in question will be applicable to candidates belonging to
all categories including that of the Ex-servicemen.
12.2. This Court further observes that the validity/vires of the
aforesaid Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 was upheld by the
Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Kheta Ram
(supra), the relevant portion whereof is reproduced as
hereunder:
"9. Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015, which makes provision for
physical fitness and physical efficiency test, prescribes
different standards of height, chest girth and other physical
efficiency test for male and female candidates and also
provides for relaxed standards of height and chest girth for
the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and races
such as Assamese, Bhutanese, Garhwalis, Gorkhas,
Kumaonis, Ladakhese, Mizo, Naga, Nepalese, Sikkimese
and those from Arunachal Pradesh, Lahul and Spiti and
Meghalaya. So far as physical efficiency test is concerned,
the different standards have been provided for male and
female candidates but no such relaxation has been
extended to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste
and races such as Assamese, Bhutanese, Garhwalis,
Gorkhas, Kumaonis, Ladakhese, Mizo, Naga, Nepalese,
Sikkimese and those from Arunachal Pradesh, Lahul and
Spiti and Meghalaya rather, a specific provision has been
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (27 of 29) [CW-3954/2023]
incorporated that the standard of physical efficiency shall
apply to the candidates of all categories including ex-
service personnel/Saharia candidates residing in Baran
district and SC/ST candidates of Tribal Sub Plan area.
......
13. In Madhu's case (supra), where the female candidate had questioned the vires of the Rule 19 (2)(a) of the Rules of 2015, prescribing chest girth for the female candidates as 79 cms. with an expansion of 5 cm., a Bench of this court observed that the physical standards settled in the Rules of 2015 as per the requirement of service cannot be questioned till it is found to be in violation of fundamental rights or in conflict with any other provision of the Constitution of India or any enabling enactment or the authority framing the rule is not competent. The court observed that every service has its own needs and requirements. Accordingly, the challenge to the Rule 19(2)(a) of the Rules of 2015, failed.
14. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that if looking to the job requirement, the rule making authority has not prescribed relaxed standards of the physical fitness for the ex-service personnel rather, specifically provided that the standards of the physical fitness as prescribed shall apply to all categories including ex- service personnel, the provision incorporated as aforesaid, cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory so as to violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India".
12.3. Thus, in light of the observations made in Kheta Ram (supra), whereby the validity and legality of Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 has been upheld, while holding that the same is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, then the afore- quoted condition 7(x) as contained in the impugned advertisement, cannot in any manner, be said to be violative of any provisions of law or prejudicial to the interests of any category of persons, particularly, the Ex-servicemen.
13. This Court further observes that in the overall scenario, it is clear that there is no repugnancy/contradiction in both the provisions i.e. Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 and Rule 18A inserted (Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (28 of 29) [CW-3954/2023] by amendment in the year 2018, particularly, as regards the recruitment process in question and thus, have to be considered harmoniously. However, since Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 (especially enacted for the post in question) specifically employed a language that the standards of physical efficiency shall apply to candidates of all categories, including Ex-service Personnel, and thus, the relaxation in question, as claimed on the strength of Rule 18A, while stating it to be special provision and having precedence over the Rules of 1988, is not worthy of being granted.
13.1. This Court further observes that the afore-quoted Rule 18A of the Rules of 1988 (brought in vide the amendment in the year 2018) clearly states that for physical fitness or physical test parameters wherever prescribed for selection to any post, such parameters shall be relaxed appropriately by the State Government with regard to ex-servicemen, thus, laying emphasis on the word 'appropriately', and it is evident that the respondents had taken into due consideration the strenuous work attached to the post in question, and thus, in the recruitment in question, providing relaxation in physical efficiency test would not be appropriate nor would it be in accordance with the demands of the work involved.
14. This Court also observes that the relaxation provided for the Ex-servicemen in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 is not applicable in the present case, because the job attached to the post in question is completely different, and (Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB] (29 of 29) [CW-3954/2023] furthermore, no provision for grant of any such relaxation has been made in the Rules of 2015.
15. This Court further observes that the physical fitness is a vital aspect for the post of Forest Guard requiring the selected candidates to endure tough conditions such as mountain climbing and treading through rough terrains, thus the job profile is such that demands physical movement and involves strenuous work, making it crucial that the persons so selected for the post in question maintain a certain standard of physical fitness.
16. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions.
17. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J SKant/-
(Downloaded on 24/04/2024 at 08:40:04 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)