ORDER : Rohit Arya, J. 1. Petitioner holds certificate showing his participation in the State Level Sports. Department of Forest, State of M.P., issued a circular on 20/8/2008, Annexure P/1, inviting applications from amongst daily-wager employees working in the Forest Department for appointment on the post of Forest Guard. It is mentioned in the circular that 5% posts are reserved for such daily-wager employees, who have participated in the State Level Games/Sports. Further, selection was to be held on the basis of merit list and in the event post classified in the district is not vacant, meritorious candidate will be considered against the vacant post in other districts. To give effect to the aforesaid circular a detailed programme for appointment of Forest Guard through direct recruitment was circulated vide circular No.4046 dated 20/8/2008, Annexure P/2. List of district-wise posts of Forest Guard was also mentioned there under. Against Damoh District, one post was shown under the category of unreserved candidate. Petitioner applied for the post of Forest Guard in District Damoh and also submitted sports certificates, Annexure P/7, issued for participation in the State Level Competition. Petitioner appeared in the examination on 31/8/2008 and secured 48%. 2. Upon declaration of result, petitioner was not selected instead one Prakash Dubey-respondent No.5 was shown to have been selected and appointed as Forest Guard with the remark that for want of availability of candidate in sports quota in District Damoh respondent no.5 is appointed as per the merit among the general candidates. 3. Petitioner made representation to respondent no.3 vide his representation dated 26/9/2008. Thereafter, he made many more representations to the authorities. It appears that an enquiry was conducted in the matter and the Chief Conservator of Forest had written a detailed DO letter to the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Administration, Bhopal on 28/6/2010, Annexure P/6, which is self-contained explanatory recommending appointment of petitioner as Forest Guard. In the letter, it has been stated that despite availability of candidate against sports quota, i.e. petitioner, appointment of respondent no.5 has led serious illegality and irregularity, as per the circular of the State Government dated 20/8/2008, 5% vacancies of Forest Guard are reserved for the candidates from sports quota. Hence, denial of appointment to the petitioner is contrary to the circular. 4. Hence, denial of appointment to the petitioner is contrary to the circular. 4. It appears that no action on the said recommendation was taken, therefore, petitioner again made a representation, but to no avail and petitioner's name continued to be shown in the wait-list at serial No.10, Annexure P/12. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the impugned order, Annexure P/3, dated 13/10/2008 so far as it relates to respondent no.5 with further direction for providing appointment to the petitioner as Forest Guard against the reserved quota sports candidate from the date respondent no.5 was appointed with consequential service benefits including seniority. 5. This Court ordered for issuance of notice. As per office report, respondents are served. Respondents no.1 to 4 have filed counter affidavit on 24/7/2011 to which petitioner has filed rejoinder on 12/3/2012. The same is taken on record. However, respondent no.5 despite service of notice has neither entered appearance nor filed counter affidavit. 6. Respondents no.1 to 4 in the counter affidavit have taken a solitary plea that petitioner did not submit certificate showing participation in the State Level Sports in support of his claim for appointment as Forest Guard against sports quota at the time of selection. Selection was already made on 31/8/2008 and select list was prepared by the selection committee on 31/8/2008. Petitioner for the first time submitted sports certificate along with his application on 26/9/2008 and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the order of appointment issued in favour of respondent no.5 on 13/10/2008. 7. In the rejoinder, petitioner has stated that requisite documents for claiming appointment against sports quota were submitted much prior to the relevant date, besides along with the representations dated 24/9/2008, 30/9/2008 and 6/10/2008, Annexures P/14 to P/16, again he had submitted aforesaid documents, i.e. much prior to issuance of appointment letter issued in favour of respondent no.5 on 13/10/2008, but respondents have chosen not to comment upon aforesaid representations. Moreover, it is only upon the representations filed by the petitioner, a detailed enquiry was held, whereupon the Chief Conservator of Forest on 28/6/2010 had written a detailed DO letter addressed to the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Annexure P/6. Moreover, it is only upon the representations filed by the petitioner, a detailed enquiry was held, whereupon the Chief Conservator of Forest on 28/6/2010 had written a detailed DO letter addressed to the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Annexure P/6. It is submitted that once all requisite documents were before the authorities, in all fairness the same ought to have been considered before issuance of the impugned order of appointment in favour of respondent no.5 on 13/10/2008. That was not done. Hence, the contention of respondents that for want of production of documents related to certificate of participation in State Level Sports appointment was denied to the petitioner, instead respondent no.5 was appointed from amongst the merit list un-reserved candidates, cannot be accepted. Further, learned counsel by referring to Annexure R/1 contends that publication of merit list as alleged does not bear the date on which the same was published, hence, it is submitted that in fact merit list was never published and after written test on 31/8/2008 appointment order was issued only on 13/10/2008. 8. Heard the counsel for the parties. Admittedly, in terms of circular dated 20/8/2008, out of 1500 posts of Forest Guards, 5% posts were reserved for such daily-wager employees, who have participated in the State/Zone/District Level Sports activities. There is no dispute between the parties that petitioner has participated in the State Level Sports events in the year 1989, 1997 and 1998, i.e. much prior to issuance of the circular dated 20/8/2008, i.e. prior to selection process. There appears to be a dispute that as to whether at the time of submission of application petitioner had submitted the requisite certificates seeking appointment as Forest Guard against sports quota, but admittedly in his representation submitted on 26/9/2008, Annexure P/4, and subsequent representations Annexures P/14 to P/16 petitioner had submitted the sports certificates cognizance whereof was taken by the Chief Conservator of Forest and a detailed enquiry was held culminating into strong recommendation in his DO letter dated 28/6/2010, Annexure P/6, addressed to the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest for providing appointment to the petitioner as Forest Guard. As such, prior to issuance of appointment to respondent no.5 on 13/10/2008, with the remark that for want of availability of candidate against sports quota respondent no.5 as per the merit list has been provided appointment, all requisite certificates entitling the petitioner to claim the post of Forest Guard against sports quota was available with the respondents/authorities. Therefore, there was no reason or justification to deny the petitioner appointment as Forest Guard. The contention of respondents that as the requisite sports certificates were not submitted at the time of selection, hence, appointment was denied, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be countenanced for more than one reason:- (i) sports certificates submitted by the petitioner are much prior to that of selection and issuance of appointment in favour of respondent no.5 and the same is beyond any cavil of doubt, therefore, petitioner's entitlement to claim appointment as Forest Guard under the sports quota cannot be denied; (ii) requisite certificates though claimed to have been submitted along with the application, even otherwise were placed before the authorities before issuance of appointment letter; and, (iii) further, there is an element of doubt and uncertainty as regards the date on which merit list was published and circulated as Annexure R/1 does not bear the date on which the same was published. Hence, petitioner cannot be denied the claim for the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, denial of appointment to the petitioner as Forest Guard against sports quota has violated the equality clause under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and petitioner is held entitled for being given the appointment as such on the post of Forest Guard against the post held by respondent no.5. 9. Consequently, the impugned order of appointment, Annexure P/3, dated 13/10/2008 so far as it relates to respondent no.5 is hereby quashed with the following directions:- 1. The petitioner shall be appointed as Forest Guard, from the date respondent no.5 is appointed, within a period of thirty days from the date of submission of certified copy of the order passed today. 2. Petitioner shall be entitled for seniority form the date respondent no.5 is appointed and all consequential benefits notionally. 3. Respondent no.5 may be adjusted against the post of Forest Guard in neighbouring district subject to availability of post. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands allowed.