[2025:RJ-JD:53325]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7916/2007 Kalu Singh S/O Sh.Nathu Singh Deora, Age 54 years. Resident of 1-P-35/36, Hiran Magri, Sector No.4 Officers Residential Colony, Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government, Forest Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Van Bhawan, Jaipur. 3. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Department, Jaipur.

4. Parbat Singh Chundawat S/o Sh. Dule Singh, by caste Rajput & resident of Village & Post Payari, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur (Retired).

5. Hamendra Prakash Chobisa S/o Sh. Parshut Lal

6. Laxman Singh Rathore S/O Sh.Kesar Singh (Retired).

7. Laxman Singh S/O Sh. Sugan Singh

8. Ratan Lal Rot S/O Sh. Laluji All through Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, AGC HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

09/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of seniority lists dated 20.09.1993 (Annexure-3) and 31.05.2004 (Annexure- 15) with an averment that the petitioner had been assigned a seniority lower than private respondent Nos.4 to 8 who were in fact appointed subsequent to the petitioner on the post of Forester.

2. Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the effect that earlier an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur and vide order dated 25.10.1999, learned Tribunal remanded the matter back to the competent authority of the respondent-Department with a direction for reconsideration of the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the private respondents.

3. In pursuance to the direction of the learned Tribunal, the competent authority issued/passed communication/order dated 20.12.2000 and held that seniority No.548 as assigned to the petitioner is correct. So far as the private respondents are concerned, it was observed that the notices had been issued to the said respondents and the position of their seniority would be clarified only after the service record of the said respondents been verified and examined.

4. Vide the said order, it was observed that if the seniority of the said respondents is re-determined/undergoes a change, the petitioner would be informed of the same.

5. Above order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the competent authority has not been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition but seniority list dated 20.09.1993 has been put to challenge which issue already stood decided vide order dated

20.12.2000.

6. Counsel submits that in absence of a challenge been laid to order dated 20.12.2000, the present writ petition cannot be entertained.

7. Responding to the above preliminary objection, and on merit, counsel for the petitioner submits that private respondents are those promotees who had initially been appointed as Forest Guards in the year 1970-71 and were subsequently promoted as Assistant Foresters and then as Foresters. The petitioner, though initially appointed as Forest Guard in the year 1976, participated in the regular recruitment process and was appointed as a Forester on 17.03.1978 vide direct recruitment. Therefore, it is the said date of appointment which would determine his seniority in the seniority list qua Forester. The private respondents having been promoted as Foresters subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, definitely could not have been accorded seniority above the petitioner.

8. So far as order dated 20.12.2000 is concerned, counsel submits that although vide the said order it was observed that the seniority of the private respondents shall be re-determined but without any such determination, the respondent-Department subsequently again proceeded on basis of seniority list dated 20.09.1993 (Annexure-3) only. Therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved of the said original seniority list, was not