[2025:RJ-JP:48810-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 560/2025

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Government Department Of Forest, Secretariat Jaipur.

2. Head Chief Forest Conservator (HOFF), Aryanya Bhawan, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, Raj.

3. The Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Karauli, Raj.

----Appellants-Respondents Versus Dhara Singh Jat S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Jat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Post Toksi, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Swaimadhopur, Raj.

----Respondent-Petitioner For Appellant(s) : Mr.B.S.Chhaba, AAG with Mr.Hardik Singh & Ms.Mansi Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajendra Singh Gautam HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Judgment

1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 01.12.2025 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 01.12.2025

3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced

4. Date of pronouncement 05.12.2025 Per, Justice Ravi Chirania:-

1. The present appeal preferred by the appellant-respondent (State of Rajasthan, Department of Forest) (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant' for short) challenging the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11574/2016 titled as Dhara Singh Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’)

was allowed.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.B.S.Chhaba submitted that learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment by solely relying upon an information provided to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2005'), by which, due to inadvertent/human error informed the marks of another candidate with the same name (Dhara Singh). Learned AAG submitted that there was no error on the part of the appellants in conducting the process and awarding of marks, however, while providing the information under the Act of 2005, the incorrect marks though recorded correctly in the official record, were informed and on that basis, the petitioner treated himself to be eligible for appointment on the post of Forest Guard under the Advertisement as issued by the State.

3. Learned AAG further submitted that the learned Single Judge did not even consider the record as produced and instead decided the writ petition solely on basis of the two informations, under the Act of 2005, dated 11.05.2016 and 20.09.2016 as provided to the petitioner. In the first communication, due to human error incorrect marks were informed, however, later on after verifying the official record, amended reply to RTI application was provided by letter dated 20.09.2016.

4. Learned AAG further submitted that this human error occurred as the two candidates were having the first two names exactly the same, however, their surnames were different. The names of the two candidates are (i) Dhara Singh Jat S/o Ramesh Jat (petitioner herein) and (ii) Dhara Singh Chouhan S/o Madan Singh Chouhan. Learned AAG further submitted that while providing the amended information/reply dated 20.09.2016, they also admitted that the petitioner secured 90 marks in the written examination instead of 88 marks, as informed to him earlier.

5. By this averment, learned AAG submitted that the human mistake was not disputed rather admitted, which occurred on account of the fact that marks of all the candidates, who appeared in the final selection process were placed in a tabular form in which names of two persons as mentioned above were shown one after the other. By referring to the record as produced before this Court, learned AAG submitted that details of the marks of Dharan Singh Chouhan S/o Madan Singh Chouhan were shown at serial No.39 and Dharan Singh Jat S/o Ramesh Jat (petitioner) were shown at serial No.40. Just because names of the two candidates, who secured equal marks (in total), therefore, due to human error incorrect marks were informed by