JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Since the issue raised in all the writ petitions is same and identical, all these writ petitions are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience the facts of WPSS No. 2045 of 2016 (Dhirendra Prasad Joshi Vs. Chief Conservator of Forest & others) are taken into consideration. 2. In all bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners claim to be seasonal workers in the Forest Department. Admittedly, the seasonal workers who have put in particular number of seasons in service in the Forest Department are liable to be considered for the post of Forest Guard. For each of the forest division, the Deputy Conservator of Forest/respondent no.2 was required to send the names of all the eligible candidates for approval from the Chief Conservator of Forest and after approval, the appointment was to be made by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer. Since the names of the petitioners were not sent by respondent no. 2 and appointments were not coming forward, the petitioners were constrained to file the present writ petitions before this Court. 3. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of Chief Conservator of Forest/respondent no. 1 in WPSS No. 2045 of 2016, it has been stated that the only reason for not giving appointments to the petitioners was that the verification at the hands of respondent no. 2 i.e. Deputy Conservator of Forest has not been made in time, and therefore, the appointments could not be made. It is an admitted position that there has been some delay at the hands of Deputy Conservator of Forest and the reasons assigned by the Deputy Conservator of Forest is that the verification as to the educational qualifications of some of the candidates could not be ascertained due to closure of the schools. Therefore, it is not without reason that there has been a delay. Moreover, the important aspect would be that the delay is not at the hands of the petitioners and even if there is a delay, they should not be penalised for the same, as the delay, if at all, is at the hands of the respondents themselves, which is admitted by the respondents. 4. Therefore, the writ petitions stand disposed with the direction to the Chief Conservator of Forest/respondent no.1 as well as respondent no. 4. Therefore, the writ petitions stand disposed with the direction to the Chief Conservator of Forest/respondent no.1 as well as respondent no. 3 to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the recommendations made by respondent no. 2 i.e. Deputy Conservator of Forest and in case the documents of each of the petitioner are in order and there is a valid recommendation in their favour and subject to their qualifications, let the needful be done in accordance with law i.e. appointment letters be issued to the petitioners, subject to the fact that there is no other irregularities attached with the petitioners.