Dismissed

Rohit Kumar S/O Sh. Bachchu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2021CW/1346/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan disposed of a writ petition challenging the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules and Subordinate Service Rules regarding weightage for science degrees. The Court held that the National Forest Commission report was recommendatory and could not bind the State or halt an advanced recruitment process.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; no amendment to rules was ordered but instructions were given for future consideration.

Rohit Kumar S/O Sh. Bachchu Singh Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1346/2021

¶3

Rohit Kumar S/o Sh. Bachchu Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Uncha Gaon, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶4

Sameer Mehra S/o Sh. Sohan Lal Mehra, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kailash Kunj, Anand Vihar, Near Shiv Dharam Kaanta, Kota Road, Baran (Raj.)

¶5

Yogesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 200, Yaduvanshi Mohalla, Village Nangal Roopa, Tehsil Kathumar, Alwar (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶10

Rajasthan Public Service Commisision, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG with Mr. J.S. Shekhawat
	Mr. Govind Gupta for Mr. M.F. Baig

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶14

Order

¶15

06/12/2021

¶16

The petitioners have challenged the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 and Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-1346/2021]

¶19

The main plank of the petitioners’ challenge is that as per report of the National Forest Commission of the year 2006, contains the following recommendations which the State Government has not incorporated in the recruitment rules:-

¶20

“309. The same study referred above should also consider as to what changes are required in the recruitment rules for the individual specialized sub-cadres, and the training and training periods required for recruits with degrees in subjects related to forestry and forestlands like botany, biology, zoology, ecology, forestry, ethology, environmental sciences etc, and for those recruits who have other science degrees. But weightage has to be given to those recruits who have graduated in subjects related to forestry as against those who have science degrees not related to forestry and ecology, and this should be reflected in the period of induction training. This, in itself, will encourage candidates to opt for relevant subjects in their college education.”

¶21

In our opinion, the report of the National Forest at best can be seen as recommendatory in nature and cannot bind the State. What should be the eligibility criteria in the matter of recruitment to the civil posts in the government is essentially the task of the rule making authority. In any case, the petitioners cannot challenge the recruitment process which has been initiated vide advertisement dated 04/04/2018 in which the process has reached an advanced stage and written test is also conducted. If the petitioners are eligible and if they have participated, it would be open to the recruiting agency to consider their cases along with other eligible candidates who might have applied. For the future, it would be open for the petitioners to highlight the recommendations of the National Forest Commission of the State Government for requirement of amendment in the recruitment rules, if any. If the case of the petitioners and recommendations are accepted in other States, the petitioners may also bring this

¶22

(3 of 3) [CW-1346/2021]

¶23

fact into the knowledge of the State Government. It would be open to the State Government to take into account all relevant facts and come to a just conclusion.

¶24

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶25

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶26

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶27

ANIL KUMAR GOYAL /

Rohit Kumar S/O Sh. Bachchu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar S/O Sh. Bachchu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Rajasthan Vs Vikram Singh Jora

State of Rajasthan Vs Sunita Jangir

State of Rajasthan Vs Charu Joshi

Monika Solanki D/O Shri Suresh Chand Solanki W/O Rahul Guha Vs Director Cum Joint Secretary

Budhram Khatana S/O Shri Mungaram Vs the Chief Manager

Ashok Kumar S/O Shri Munna Lal Sikarwar Vs State of Rajasthan