Dismissed

Hukum Singh Shekhawat Son of Late Shri Arjun Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2019CW/3289/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Assistant Forester, filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of his RTI appeals regarding non-production of seniority lists of Forest Guards from 1997 to 2007. The court held that the impugned orders were not perverse and the petitioner could appeal seniority disputes to the Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hukum Singh Shekhawat Son of Late Shri Arjun Singh… — RTI and Transparency | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH ORDER (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3289/2019)

¶3

Hukum Singh Shekhawat son of late Shri Arjun Singh Shekhawat aged about 58 years by caste Rajput R/o 36 Rajputon ka Mohalla village Aantela Tehsil Viratnagar, District Jaipur.

¶4

- - Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary (Department of Forest) Room No.8001, SHO Building Ground Floor Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Principal Conservator of Forest (off) Aranya Bhawan Jhalana Dungri Jaipur.

¶8

Appellate Authority and Additional Principal Conservator of Forest (Administration) Aranya Bhawan Jhalana Dungri Jaipur.

¶9

Deputy Conservator of Forest (Technical Assistant Conservator of Forest) Aranya Bhawan Jhalana Dungri Jaipur.

¶10

Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan State Information Commission Jhalana Link Road, OTS Chauraha, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶11

Date of Order: March 14, 2019.

¶12

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶13

Mr. Narendra Verma, for the petitioner.

¶14

BY THE COURT :

¶15

The petitioner, Assistant Forester, has prayed for directions to respondents to provide him the seniority list relating to the cadre of Forest Guard from the year 1997 to 2007, 2009 to 2011 and 2015.

¶16

The Facts of the case are that the petitioner initially appointed

¶17

¶18

as Beldar on temporary basis in the year 1982. Vide order dated 2- 3-1996 he was promoted as forest guard and vide order dated 212-2017 further promoted as Assistant Forester.

¶19

Vide application dated 6-4-2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter `the Act of 2005’), the petitioner sought copy of seniority lists of 1997 to 2007, 2009 to 2011 and 2015. That application was replied on 27-4-2018 disclosing the fact that there was no seniority list of forest guard prior to 2007 and only on 1-4-2007 for the first time such seniority list was prepared, and was being furnished to the petitioner. The seniority list of forest guard of 1997 to 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2015 was stated to not be in existence. Further it was clarified that promotions were made on the basis of seniority of forest guards of the concerned year. Thereupon the seniority lists of 1-4-2016 and 1-4-2017 were prepared.

¶20

Dissatisfied with the said reply 27-4-2018 an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act of 2005 on the ground of not being furnished the seniority lists as sought was filed by the petitioner. Relying on the reply dated 27-4-2018, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 28-5-2018. The petitioner’s second appeal against the order dated 28-5-2018 was also dismissed on

¶21

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶22

A perusal of the material available on record specifically the department’s reply dated 27-4-2018 which clearly states that there was no seniority list of forest guard prior to 2007 and the fact that seniority list as of 1-4-2007 was provided to the petitioner. I am of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by the appellate authorities under the Act of 2005 do not suffer either from any perversity, patent illegality, misdirection in law or error of jurisdiction. Aside of the above the petitioner if aggrieved of his seniority in the cadre of forest guard is always free to file an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner thus cannot even otherwise be held to suffer manifest injustice to warrant exercise of the discretionary equitable and extraordinary

¶23

jurisdiction of this court.

¶24

There is no force in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

arn/

Hukum Singh Shekhawat Son of Late Shri Arjun Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hukum Singh Shekhawat Son of Late Shri Arjun Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Kumar Udeniya Son of Shri Jaman Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Preeti Porwal D/O Gyan Chand Jain Vs the State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Education Secretary

Naveen Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Omprakash Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Seema Narwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Madho Singh S/O Shri Kalyan Singh Vs Rajhans Upadhyaya, Chairman Cum Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Jasveer Singh Son of Shri Sardar Singh Vs the Union of India