JUDGMENT :

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the communication dated 23/4/2021 (Annex.5) by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests requiring the marks obtained by the Foresters in the recruitment – 2016 for the purpose of completing the exercise of time bound promotion at the department level and provisional seniority list dated 1/11/2021 (Annex.6) for the post of Foresters.

2. It is inter alia indicated that in the Recruitment – 2016 held for the post of Foresters vide advertisement dated 16/10/2015, applications were invited Division-wise and in the note it was specifically indicated that the recruitment was on Division-wise basis and only for the purpose of convenience a combined advertisement has been issued. It is submitted that pursuant to the advertisement the recruitment was held with different question papers for different divisions, the results were declared separately along with separate cut off and merit list Division-wise.

3. After being appointed, the petitioners continued to serve as Foresters, when on 23/4/2021 a communication (Annex.5) was sent by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HOFF) requiring the marks obtained by the Foresters in the Recruitment 2016 initiated by advertisement dated 16/10/2015. Whereafter, a provisional seniority list dated 1/11/2021 (Annex.6) was issued, wherein, qua those recruited pursuant to the Recruitment-2016, their seniority has been indicated based on the marks purportedly obtained in the said recruitment.

4. Submissions have been made that said action of the respondents is not justified as the recruitment was held Division-wise, there were separate papers and separate merit list issued and that the cut off in various divisions were so different that at one division the cut off was 100 and in another division the same was 40 and as such, all those who had participated in the recruitment Division-wise and were selected cannot be equated for the purpose of seniority and, therefore, the respondents be directed to prepare the seniority list in terms of the date of appointment. Reference has been made to provisions of Rule 42 of the Rajasthan Forest (Subordinate) Service Rules, 2015 (‘Rules, 2015’), wherein, it is indicated that the seniority shall be determined from the date of appointment on the post after regular selection.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State raised preliminary objections that the seniority list is provisional only and that qua the said list the petitioners could have filed objections, which some of the petitioners have filed, and till such time the final seniority list is issued, the petitioners do not have any cause of action.

6. Further submissions have been made with reference to proviso (i) to Rule 42 of the Rules, 2015 that the inter se seniority of persons appointed to a post in a particular category by direct recruitment on the basis of one and the same selection is to be determined by the order of merit in the list prepared under Rule 30(5) and as such, the plea raised by the petitioners in this regard has no basis.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents also raised similar issues by making submissions that the plea raised by the petitioners has no substance in view of the express provisions of Rule 23, 30 (5) and proviso (i) to Rule 42 of the Rules, 2015.

8. Submissions were also made that the plea raised by the petitioners requiring the seniority list to be prepared on the basis of date of appointment cannot be countenanced as the same essentially could be based on fortuitous circumstances and as the recruitment was held based on a common advertisement and common syllabus, merely because different papers were given in the examination which exams were held on the same date, the provisions of Rule 42 of the Rules, 2015 requiring preparation of inter se seniority based on merit cannot be given a go-bye and, thereby, the petitions besides being premature, on merits also deserve