SBCWP2893/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2893/1997 Ranveer Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order ::: 16.02.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Sandeep Saxena, Counsel for petitioner Shri Gajendra Manav, Deputy Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- This writ petition was filed by petitioner, who was Forest Guard, in the year 1997 praying therein for a direction to respondents to give benefit of promotion to him to the post of Assistant Forester because he got first position in final examination conducted by Forest Training Center, in terms of Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, with all consequential benefits; further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to make such provision and consider him for promotion to post of Assistant Forester in terms of Rule 21 of the said Rules since he secured first position in 1982 batch of Forest Guard SBCWP2893/1997 // 2 // Training. It is contended that the aforesaid Rule seeks to make a hostile discrimination as against a candidate who stands at first position while undergoing training in same Training School i.e. State Foresters Training School, yet, he is not granted incentives as granted in the case of Forester, who stand first in the final examination conducted by Forest Training Center. Shri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for petitioner, in this connection referred to Rule 21 of the said Rules to press his argument and submitted that when a forester standing first in the final examination of a State Foresters Training School is exempt from the conditions regarding age limit and qualifying examination, respectively, if he has less than 10 years of service and he is deputed by the State Government for training without being required to appear before the Commission for interview, the same incentive be extended to petitioner who stood first in the Training, as is evident from the Certificate dated 03.12.1996 (Annexure-4). Shri Gajanand Manav, learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for respondents, SBCWP2893/1997 // 3 // opposed writ petition and submitted that grant of incentives and making of provision like that, is a matter of legislative policy and, if the Rule Making Authority has restricted such incentive to be accorded to Foresters, the petitioner, who was merely a Forest Guard, cannot on that analogy claim same benefit particularly when he holds lower post. On hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing the material on record, and also carefully studying Rule 21 of the said Rules, I find that in Note-2 below Rule 21 of the said Rules it is clearly stated that intention of that Rule is to provide exemption to a Forester, who stand first in the final examination of a State Foresters Training School, from conditions regarding age limit and qualifying examination, respectively, and to depute for training without being required to appear before the Commission for interview, and may be sent straightaway for training for promotion to the post of Ranger. The intention of said Note clearly indicates that a Forester may be promoted as Ranger without having qualified in the Ranger Course if 5 years of the total service have been spent as a Forester. Whether or not to provide the SBCWP2893/1997 // 4 // incentive of this nature to Forest Guard is indeed an issue concerning with the rule making policy viz. the State. This Court cannot by writ of mandamus require the State to frame the Rules in a particular manner. There can be no question of discrimination as far as the petitioner is concerned because a Forest Guard does not fall in same category in which Foresters stand. They are two different services. The sourse of recruitment to the post of Forester is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from amongst Assistant Foresters, which, in turn, is filled in 100% by promotion from amongst Forest Guards. I therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petition. However, the petitioner may make a representation to the State Government for suitably amending the Rules so as to provide such facility. This Court cannot certainly grant such direction. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with aforesaid observation. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//