Hukum Singh Shekhawat Son Of Late ... vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 966 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/000815]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 604/2019

                                             In

                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3289/2019

Hukum      Singh      Shekhawat           Son      of    Late       Shri   Arjun    Singh
Shekhawat, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 36, Rajputon Ka Mohalla
Village Aantela, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Jaipur.
                                                                           ----Appellant
                                         Versus
1.       State       Of   Rajasthan,          Through         Its     Additional     Chief
         Secretary (Department Of Forest), Room No. 8001,
         S.H.O. Building Ground Floor, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Principal Conservator Of Forest (Off), Aranya Bhawan,
         Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur.
3.       Appellate Authority And Additional Principal, Conservator
         Of    Forest      (Administration), Aranya                   Bhawan,      Jhalana
         Dungri, Jaipur.
4.       Deputy       Conservator          Of     Forest,       (Technical      Assistant
         Conservator Of Forest) Aranya Bhawan, Jhalana Dungri,
         Jaipur.
5.       Chief       Information          Commissioner,               Rajasthan      State
         Information         Commission,           Jhalana       Link      Road,    O.T.S.
         Chauraha, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
                                                                       ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Verma, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment / Order

30/01/2023

Heard.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2019

passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition has

[2023/RJJP/000815] (2 of 2) [SAW-604/2019]

been dismissed holding that the information available with the

respondents were provided.

Though, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that

the respondents are possessed of other seniority list also, we find

that a categoric stand has been taken by the respondents that

prior to 2007, no seniority list was maintained and after 2007, the

seniority list of 2009, 2010 and 2011 are also not available. The

appellant has placed on record seniority list published in 2008 and

2012.

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the

order passed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal is,

therefore, dismissed.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita /8

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)