Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 646 (RAJ)

Dhara Singh Jat v. State Forest Departmentors

2025-03-06

SAMEER JAIN

body2025
JUDGMENT : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers: - “(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof the answer of question no. 12 disputed by the petitioner may kindly be corrected in the answer key. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof, direct the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Forest Guard, after correcting the answer in the answer key of question no. 12 was given wrong and the respondents be further directed to treat the answer of the petitioner correct for the said question and proper marks may kindly be given to the petitioner by issuing fresh answer key. (iii) A fresh list has been issued by the respondents for selected candidates. (iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondent to constitute an independent committee of expert for rectifying the error committed in the answer key. (v) Issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The factual matrix of the instant matter is that an advertisement dated 16.10.2015 and corrigendum No. F15(1) 2015/karmic-bharti/prabhuvas/11405 was issued by the respondents for the post of ‘Forest Guard’ in District Karoli. 3. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner, being an eligible candidate, applied for the said post. The respondents issued an admit card to the petitioner, thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the written examination conducted by the respondents, wherein, petitioner secured 88 marks out of 100 marks. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared for the second test i.e. Physical Test, wherein, the petitioner had secured 20 marks out of 20 marks. Consequently, the petitioner appeared in the final test i.e. Interview, wherein, the petitioner had secured 7.75 marks out of 10 marks. 5. Controversy in the instant matter arose when the result declared by the respondents did not include the name of the petitioner. 6. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had applied for the said post under the OBC category. It was further submitted that for the said category, cut-off was specified as 117 marks and petitioner had secured 115.75 marks approximately (Annexure-A/1). 7. 6. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had applied for the said post under the OBC category. It was further submitted that for the said category, cut-off was specified as 117 marks and petitioner had secured 115.75 marks approximately (Annexure-A/1). 7. Furthermore, it was submitted that respondents had declared the result of successful candidates for the said post on 21.04.2016. Being aggrieved of the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner had filed an RTI application on 02.05.2016, in response, the respondents had provided their reply on 11.05.2016, wherein, respondents furnished a bifurcation of marks secured by the petitioner. 8. Subsequently, it was submitted that the respondents had issued a final answer key of the examination, after reviewing it, the petitioner discovered that the answer to question 12 was incorrect, whereas the petitioner had answered it correctly. Therefore, requisite marks for the said question should be awarded to the petitioner. 9. Additionally, it was submitted that the respondents vide second reply dated 20.09.2016 rectified their RTI reply, which is against the RTI Act as there is no provision for second reply. 10. Lastly, it was submitted that the High Court in this regard directed the respondents to keep one seat vacant qua the petitioner and restrain from making appointments on the said post under respective category, however, respondents have not complied with the directions of the Court. Therefore, the present petition is filed. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had scored 90 marks out of 100 in written examination, 5.75 marks out of 10 marks in interview and marks scored in physical test were undisputed in the RTI reply dated 20.09.2016. Therefore, the petitioner had scored less than the cut-off marks under the respective category, thus, ineligible for appointment on the said post. 12. It was further submitted that there were no vacancies or vacant seats available qua the said post under the respective category when the High Court passed an interim order i.e. on 28.09.2016. Therefore, the present petition should be rendered as infructuous. 13. Heard and considered. 14. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, upon assiduous scanning of the records, this Court has made the following observations: - 14.1 That vide advertisement dated 16.10.2015, applications were invited for 56 seats for the post of Forest Guard. Therefore, the present petition should be rendered as infructuous. 13. Heard and considered. 14. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, upon assiduous scanning of the records, this Court has made the following observations: - 14.1 That vide advertisement dated 16.10.2015, applications were invited for 56 seats for the post of Forest Guard. 14.2 That as per the information sought via RTI under Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, vide reply dated 11.05.2016, it is noted that the petitioner has secured 88 marks in written examination, 20 marks in physical test and 7.75 marks in interview. 14.3 That on 20.09.2016, respondents provided revised reply to the RTI information sought under Section 6 (1) of RTI Act, 2005, wherein, respondents clarified that the petitioner has scored 90 marks in written examination, 20 marks in physical test and 5.75 marks in interview. 14.4 That respondents have conceded that marks awarded to the petitioner for the question in dispute were less than that what was rightly due to him, as a result, the petitioner's score in the written examination should be corrected from 88 to 90 marks. 14.5 The revised reply provided by the respondents via RTI reply dated September 20, 2016, is not admissible, as once a reply is furnished under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the office becomes functus officio, thence, unless the original reply is challenged and set aside under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the original reply shall be deemed final and binding. 14.6 Taking note of the overall circumstances, it is noted that the petitioner has scored 90 marks in the written examination, thereby, resulting in total marks scored by the petitioner as 117.75, which is exceeding the cut-off specified under the respective category i.e. 117 marks. 14.7. That an interim order dated 28.09.2016 was passed by the Court, wherein, after giving audience to the respondents, rights of the petitioner were kept reserved qua the said selection process, and it is noted that out of 56 seats, only 53 seats are filled up by the respondents, implying that the petitioner is deprived of appointment for approximately 10 years, despite securing merit. The interim order highlighted the existence of vacancies and was never appealed, modified, or vacated, emphasizing the legitimacy of the petitioner's claim. The interim order highlighted the existence of vacancies and was never appealed, modified, or vacated, emphasizing the legitimacy of the petitioner's claim. 14.8 In this regard, it cannot be argued that there is no vacancy available when the Court had already protected the petitioner’s right, implying that the vacancy existed and same was reserved for the petitioner. 15. Taking note of the overall facts and circumstances, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it apposite to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner as he has secured more than cut off marks (90 marks in written examination, 20 marks in physical test and 7.75 marks in interview), and accordingly award notional benefits to the petitioner as awarded to similarly situated candidates/persons under the respective category. 16. It is made clear that, if the direction passed herein are not complied with by the respondents (Respondent No.1), within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this judgment, then a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) will be imposed on respondent No. 1. 17. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with the afore- mentioned direction. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.