Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Subhash Chander vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 27 November, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12299 / 2017
Subhash Chander S/o Sh. Rameshwar Saharan, Aged About 30
Years, Resident of Village Bhangarh, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan)
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan)
4. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Bhangarh, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
5. Gram Panchayat Bhangarh, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra Through
Its Secretary. Dist.- Hanumangarh
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8830 / 2017
1. Naresh Patidar Son of Shri Megji, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident of Village Surwaniya, Tehsil & District Banswara.
2. Asha Patidar Wife of Shri Rakesh Patiar, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident of Village Surwaniya, Tehsil & District Banswara.
3. Jaideep Singh Chouhan Son Shri Ranveer Singh Chouhan, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident of Village Lamba-Parda, Post Motatanda,
Tehsil Ganoda, District Banswara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Rural
Development & Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Additional Commissioner & Joint Secretary, Rural Development
& Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara.
4. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Banswara.
(2 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12142 / 2017
1. Vishnuraj Purohit S/o Shri Dungaram Purohit, Aged About 39
Years, By Caste Rajpurohit R/o Nanarwara Panchayat Samiti
Pindwara District Sirohi.
2. Sugna Kumari W/o Shri Jagdish Kumar Choudhary, Aged About
31 Years, By Caste Choudhary R/o Mandwara Khalsa Panchayat
Samiti Pindwara District Sirohi.
3. Galbaram S/o Shri Sitaram, R/o Mandwara Khalsa Panchayat
Samiti Pindwara District Sirohi. All Are Presently Working on the
Post of Gram Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Mandwara Khalsa
Panchayat Samiti Pindwara District Sirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. Zila Parishad, Sirohi Through Its Chief Executive Officer
3. District Collector, Sirohi.
4. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12268 / 2017
1. Prahalad Kumar S/o Shri Rama Shanker, Aged About 30 Years,
Village Kasindra Post. Achpura Teh. Pindvara, District Shirohi.
2. Pooja Rajprohit S/o Shri Rajesh Rajprohit, Aged About 22 Years,
Village Kasindra Post. Achpura Teh. Pindvara, District Shirohi.
3. Natha Ram S/o Shri Nona Ram, Aged About 41 Years, V/P
Nagpura Teh. Pindvara, District Shirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
(3 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
4. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer, Government Senior
Secondary School Achpura Teh. Pindvara District Sirohi, Dist.
Shirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12289 / 2017
1. Parbhu Ram Garasia S/o Shri Samtaram, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village Kundal, Post Verli, Tehsil Pindvara, District Shirohi.
2. Orsa Ram S/o Shri Husa Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village
& Post Verli, Tehsil Pindvara, District Shirohi.
3. Nima Kumari D/o Shri Rama Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village Dhaga, Post Verli, Tehsil Pindvara, District Shirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
4. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer, Government Senior
Secondary School Verli, Tehsil Pindvara, District Sirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12291 / 2017
1. Shambhoo Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Village & Post Warman, Tehsil Reodar, District Shirohi.
2. Chetna Ram S/o Shri Kallu Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Village Mermandwada, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi.
3. Suja Ram S/o Shri Una Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village
& Post Mermandwada, Tehsil Reodar, District Shirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
(4 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
4. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer, Government Senior
Secondary School Mermandwada, Reodar, District Shirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12295 / 2017
1. Rajesh Kumar Son of Sh. Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 17, Shawa Bus Stand Ke Pass, Nohar, Tehsil
Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
2. Ramswaroop Son of Sh. Dhanraj, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident of Village Khopara, Panchayat Bhanguli, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayat Raj, Secretary, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
4. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Bhanguli, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
5. Gram Panchayat Bhanguli, Panchayat Samiti Nohar Through Its
Secretary, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12300 / 2017
1. Mukesh Kumar Son of Sh. Subhash Chander, Aged About 28
Years, Resident of VPO Kalana, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
2. Sukh Ram Son of Sh. Tarachand, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident of VPO Kalana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
(5 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
4. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Kalana, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
5. Gram Panchayat Kalana, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra Through Its
Secretary, Dist. Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12315 / 2017
1. Mahender Singh Son of Sh. Amar Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident of VPO Kirarabada, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan)
2. Goverdhan Son of Sh. Sanwar Mal, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident of VPO Kirarabada, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
4. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Kirarabada, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
5. Gram Panchayat Kirarabada, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra Through
Its Secretary. Distt. Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12316 / 2017
Murari Lal S/o Sh. Ami Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident of
Village Ajitpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
(6 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan)
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan)
4. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Ajitpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
5. Gram Panchayat Ajitpura, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra Through Its
Secretary. Distt. Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12317 / 2017
Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Dharm Pal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident
of Village Mehriya, PO Sherda, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan)
4. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Sherda, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
5. Gram Panchayat Sherda, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra Through Its
Secretary. Dist.- Hanumangarh
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12321 / 2017
1. Bhanwar Lal Meghwal S/o Shri Noja Ram Meghwal, Aged About
(7 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
39 Years, Resident of Melawari, Post Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District
Rajsamand.
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Lal Ji Patidar, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident of Talawari, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand.
3. Dal Chand Gameti S/o Shri Hajari Lal, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident of Gundi Ka Bhilwara, Post Kelwara, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh,
District Rajsamand.
4. Kana Ram Gameti S/o Shri Mala Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident of Barind, Post Gajpur, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District
Rajsamand.
5. Roopa Lal Gameti S/o Shri Kura Ram, Aged About 39 Years,
Resident of Bardara, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand.
6. Bhura Ram Bhil S/o Shri Doola Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident of Sima, Post Kadiya, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District
Rajsamand.
7. Som Lal Gameti S/o Shri Vena Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident of Udawar, Post Vardara, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District
Rajsamand.
8. Hima Ram Balai S/o Shri Dalu Ram, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident of Gajpura, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand.
9. Suresh Chander Gurjar D/o Shri Heera Lal, Aged About 29
Years, Resident of Kalinjar, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District
Rajsamand.
10. Naru Lal Balai S/o Shri Panna Lal, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident of Madrecho Ka Gura, Post Kalinjer, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh,
District Rajsamand.
11. Suresh Kumar Meghwal S/o Shri Tulsi Ram, Aged About 31
Years, Resident of Morcha, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District
Rajsamand.
12. Om Prakash Tak S/o Shri Bheru Lal Tak, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident of Oladar, Post Majhera, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District
Rajsamand.
13. Lahar Singh Solanki S/o Shri Nathu Singh, Aged About 32
Years, Resident of Pichora Ki Bhagal, Post Kalingar Tehsil
Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand.
14. Dharmnarayan Ameta S/o Shri Balu Lal Ameta, Aged About 30
Years, Resident of Kelwara, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District
Rajsamand.
(8 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Rajsamand
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh,
District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12329 / 2017
Om Prakash S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste
Valmiki, Resident of VPO Bhukarka, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Primary, Hanumangarh.
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat Bhukarka, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Secretary.
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh
Senior Secondary School, Bhukarka, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12330 / 2017
1. Satish S/o Manphool, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Thory,
Resident of VPO Ratanpura, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
(9 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
2. Sandeep Kumar S/o Ami Lal, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste
Thory, Resident of VPO Ratanpura, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Elementary, Hanumangarh.
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat Ratanpura, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Secretary.
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh
Senior Secondary School, Ratanpura, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12331 / 2017
Rajesh Kumar S/o Brij Lal, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Jat,
Resident of Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Primary, Hanumangarh.
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat Deeplana, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Secretary
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh
Senior Secondary School, Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12335 / 2017
(10 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
1. Dashrath Singh S/o Shri Ishwar Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
Village/Post Balda Teh. Shirohi, District Shirohi.
2. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Desha Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
V/Post Velagiri Teh. Shirohi, District Shirohi.
3. Narpat Singh S/o Shri Hamir Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
Village/Post Velagiri Teh. Shirohi, District Shirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
4. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer, Government Senior
Secondary School Velapur Teh. Shirohi District Sirohi, Dist.
Shirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12336 / 2017
1. Surjeet Singh S/o Shri Jeev Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Village/Post Kailashnagar, Teh. Shivganj, District Sirohi.
2. Manjulata D/o Shri Hukama Ram, Aged About 33 Years,
Village/Post Kailashnagar, Teh. Shivganj, District Sirohi.
3. Pratap Ram S/o Shri Ana Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
Village/Post Kailashnagar, Teh. Shivganj, District Sirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayat Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sirohi.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Sirohi.
4. The Panchayat Primary Education Education Officer Government
Senior Secondary School, Kailashnagar Teh. Shivganj District
Sirohi, Dist. Sirohi.
----Respondents
(11 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12338 / 2017
Krishna Kumar S/o Ganpat Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Resident of
Village Sheyorani, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Primary, Hanumangarh.
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat Sheyorani, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Secretary.
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh
Senior Secondary School, Sheyorani, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12343 / 2017
Bhushan Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident of Malarampura, Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Chak Heera Singh Wala, Tehsil
Sangriya, District Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Chak Heera Singh Wala, Panchayat Samiti
Sangriya, District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
(12 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12344 / 2017
Suman D/o Sh. Mohan Lal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident of
Village Post Gudiya, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Gudiya, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Gudiya, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12345 / 2017
Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Ram Pratap, Aged About 27 Years, R/o VPO
10 BD, Post 17 KYD, Tehsil Khajuvala, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bikaner,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Khajuvala, District
Bikaner.
(13 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
5. Gram Panchayat 14 BD, Panchayat Samiti Khajuvala District
Bikaner Through Its Secretary.
6. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (PEEO), Gram
Panchayat 14 BD, Panchayat Samiti Khajuvala, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12347 / 2017
1. Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Rajaram, Aged About 32 Years, By
Caste Jat, R/o VPO Bashir, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.)
2. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar, By Caste Jat, R/o VPO Munda,
Tehsil and District Hanumangarh (Raj).
3. Kuldeep Kumar S/o Shri Balram, By Caste Jat, R/o VPO
Rampura Ramsara, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, Secretariat, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
3. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education),
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Khara Kheda, Panchayat Samiti, Tibbi District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Meharwala, Panchayat Samiti, Tibbi District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
6. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Rampura Ramsara, Panchayat Samiti, Tibbi District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12348 / 2017
1. Ram Singh S/o Shri Rau Ram, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste
(14 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Meghwal, R/o VPO Talwara Jheel, Tehsil Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. Rukmani Devi D/o Shri Faquir Chand, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
VPO Kamana, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, Secretariat, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
3. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat, Beharwala Kalan, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi,
District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Beharwala Kalan, Panchayat Samiti, Tibbi District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchyat Elementary Education Officer
(PEEO)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12349 / 2017
1. Shankar Lal S/o ChampaLal, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Prajapat,
R/o Mandwada Dev, Post- Rohida, Teh. Pindwara, District Sirohi.
2. Koopla Ram S/o Puna Ram Ji, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Bhil,
R/o GhanchiyaNadi Mandwada Dev, Post- Rohida, Teh. Pindwara,
District Sirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Sirohi.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
4. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
5. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer Government Aadarsh
Senior Secondary School Mandwada Dev, Dist. Shirohi.
(15 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12351 / 2017
1. Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Mahender Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o VPO Jandwala, Sikhan, Tehsil Sangria,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, By
Caste Jat, R/o VPO Nagrana, Tehsil Sangria, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, Secretariat, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
3. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education),
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat, Jandwala Sikhan, Panchayat Samiti Sangria,
District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Jandwala Sikhan, Panchayat Samiti, Sangria District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12352 / 2017
1. Kapura Ram S/o Ransaji, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Bhil, R/o
Deldar, Vaya- Aburoad, District Sirohi.
2. Man Singh S/o Ganga Singh Deora, Aged About 25 Years, B/c
Rajput, R/o Deldar, Vaya- Aburoad, District Sirohi.
3. PradipKumar S/o Veera Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Deldar,
Vaya- Aburoad, District Sirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Sirohi.
(16 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi.
4. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Sirohi.
5. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer Government Senior
Secondary School Deldar, Dist. Sirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12353 / 2017
Ram Kumar S/o Shri Shyo Chnad, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 154,
Hari Singh Takhar Ke Ghar Se Subhash Ke Ghar Ke Pass,
Sasrdargadhiya, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, Secretariat, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
3. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education),
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat, Sardargadhiya, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra,
District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Sardargadhiya, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12354 / 2017
Saroj D/o Sh. Om Prakash, Aged About 25 Years, Resident of
Village Post Mahrana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
(17 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Mehrana, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Mehrana, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12359 / 2017
Smt. Kavita D/o Shri Om Prakash W/o Shri Sandeep Manjhu, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident of VPO Ridmalsar, Tehsil Padampur
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Sri Ganganagar
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Padampur District
Sri Ganganagar.
7. School Development Management Committee, Government
Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Ridmalsar, Tehsil Padampur,
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12363 / 2017
1. Gurmeet S/o Sh. Mander Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident
of Ward No. 02, VPO Shyamsingh Wala, Gram Panchayat 31 SSW,
Tehsil & District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan.)
2. Manpreet Kaur D/o Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 01, VPO Shyamsingh Wala, Gram Panchayat
(18 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
31 SSW, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Adarsh Secondary School, Shyamsingh Wala, Tehsil Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat 31 SSW, Panchayat Samiti Hanumangarh
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12364 / 2017
Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Shyochand, Aged About 30 Years, Resident
of Village Kanwani, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan)
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Adarsh Secondary School, Kanwani, Tehsil Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Kanwani, Panchayat Samiti Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
(19 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12368 / 2017
1. Om Prakash Garasiya S/o Hansa Ram Ji, Aged About 36 Years,
B/c Garasiya, R/o Bhogiya Phali Moras, Teh. Pindwara, District
Sirohi.
2. Sohan Lal S/o Chhagaji, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Garasiya,
R/o Dalawto Ki Phali Moras, Teh. Pindwara, District Sirohi.
3. Sugana Kumari D/o Bheema Ram Ji, Aged About 31 Years, B/c
Garasiya, R/o Pariya Phali Moras, Teh. Pindawara, District Sirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Sirohi.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
4. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
5. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer Government Senior
Secondary School Moras, Dist. Shirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12369 / 2017
1. Amita Bishnoi D/o Ashok Kumar Bishnoi, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Plot No. 18 Mahalaxmi Colony, Satpur, Aburoad, District
Sirohi.
2. Abhilasha D/o Aanand Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Nayakheda, Aburoad, District Sirohi.
3. Shakti Vardhan S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Santpur, Aburoad, District Sirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Sirohi.
(20 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
4. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
5. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer Government Senior
Secondary School Bhesasingh, Dist. Shirohi
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12370 / 2017
1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Anaji, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Meghwal R/o
Vatera, Teh. Pindwara, District Sirohi.
2. Chhagan Lal S/o Punamaji, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Meghwal
R/o Vatera, Teh. Pindwara, District Sirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Sirohi
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
4. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
5. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer, Government Senior
Secondary School Vatera, Dist. Shirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12371 / 2017
1. Ramu Ram S/o Sh. Ishar Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident
of Village Barjangsar, Tehsil Sridungargarh, District Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
2. Pema Ram S/o Sh. Jetha Ram, Resident of Village Barjangsar,
Tehsil Sridungargarh, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
(Rajasthan).
(21 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
3. District Collector, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Barjangsar, Tehsil Sridungargarh, Disrict
Bikaner.
6. Gram Panchayat Barjangsar, Panchayat Samiti Sridungargarh,
District Bikaner Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12372 / 2017
1. Nanda Ram Dotasara S/o Sh. Suraja Ram, Aged About 24
Years, Resident of Village Biramsar, Post Jalabsar, Tehsil
Sridungargarh, District Bikaner (Rajasthan.)
2. Dropati D/o Sh. Lichhaman Ram Karwasara, Aged About 22
Years, Resident of Sajora Nagar, Sagar Road, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Jalabsar, Tehsil Sridungargarh,
District Bikaner.
6. Gram Panchayat Jalabsar, Panchayat Samiti Sridungargarh,
District Bikaner Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12373 / 2017
Daleep Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 09, Village Post Kishanpura Dikhnada, Tehsil
& District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
(22 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Adarsh Senior Secondary Shool, Kishanpura Dikhnada, Tehsil
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Kishanpura Dikhnada, Panchayat Samiti
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12374 / 2017
Pushpa Soni D/o Sh. Shankar Lal, Aged About 23 Years, Resident
of Village Post Baramsar, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan)
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Baramsar, Tehsil Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Baramsar, Panchayat Samiti Rawatsar Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12375 / 2017
Gayanender Bishnoi S/o Shri Brij Lal Poonia, Aged About 37 Years,
(23 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Resident of Village 2TK, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar.
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Sri Ganganagar.
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Padampur District
Sri Ganganagar.
7. School Development Management Committee, Government
Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Ridmalsar, Tehsil Padampur,
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12377 / 2017
Gurtej Singh S/o Sh. Baljeet Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident
of Village Post Dhaban, Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan)
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Dhaban, Tehsil Sangriya, District
(24 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Dhaban, Panchayat Samiti Sangriya, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12381 / 2017
Meera D/o Sh. Rupram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident of Village
Mehliya, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Bojhala, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Bojhala, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12387 / 2017
Pushpa D/o Sh. Mahabir Prasad, Wife of Sh. Jai Prakash Poonia,
Aged About 35 Years, Resident of Village Durjana, Post Meghana,
Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan)
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
(25 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
4. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Meghana, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
5. Gram Panchayat Meghana, Panchayat Samiti Nohar Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12392 / 2017
1. Shri Chand Suthar S/o Shri Krishan Suthar, Aged About 46
Years, R/o VPO Chek 25 DWD Gram Panchayat 15-16 KWD, Tehsil
Rawatsar, District Hanumagnarh (Raj.).
2. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Mani Ram, R/o VPO Khoda, Tehsil
Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, Secretariat, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
3. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education),
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. The Block Education Officer, (Elementary Education), Rawatsar,
District Hanumangarh.
5. Gram Panchayat, 15-26 KWD, Panchayat Samiti, Rawatsar,
District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
6. Gram Panchayat, Khoda, Panchayat Samiti Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
7. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat15-26 KWD, Panchayat Samiti, Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
8. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Khoda, Panchayat Samiti, Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12394 / 2017
Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Leela Dhar, Aged About 28 Years, B/c
(26 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Goswami, R/o VOP Sagra, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education (Elementary), Jaipur
Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Hanumangarh.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12395 / 2017
Jaswant Singh Sharma S/o Shri Dharmpal, Aged About 35 Years,
B/c Brahman, R/o VOP Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education (Elementary), Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Hanumangarh.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12396 / 2017
1. Khursid Ahmed S/o Adhris Mohammad, Aged About 27 Years,
By Caste Muslim, R/o VPO Nanau, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
2. Manta D/o Mehar Chand, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste Jat,
R/o Village Nanau, District Hanumangarh.
(27 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Primary, Hanumangarh.
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat Nanau, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Secretary
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh
Senior Secondary School, Nanau, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12397 / 2017
Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Chand Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident of Village Post Likhamadesar, Tehsil Sridungargarh,
Distirct Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Bikaner.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner (Rajasthan) .
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Likhamadesar, Tehsil
Sridungargarh, District Bikaner.
6. Gram Panchayat Likhamadesar, Panchayat Samiti
Sridungargarh, District Bikaner Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
(28 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12402 / 2017
Jaswant Sharma S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 33
Years, Resident of VPO Kansar, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Primary, Hanumangarh.
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat Kansar, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Secretary.
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh
Senior Secondary School, Kansar, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12408 / 2017
1. Manoj Kumar S/o Nathu Ram, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste
Jat, Resident of VPO Dheel-Ki-Jatan, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
2. Sanjay Kumar S/o Nathu Ram, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste
Jat, Resident of VPO Dheel-Ki-Jatan, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Primary, Hanumangarh.
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat Dheel-Ki-Jatan, Panchayat Samiti Nohar,
District Hanumangarh, Through Its Secretary.
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh
(29 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Senior Secondary School, Dheel-Ki-Jatan, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12409 / 2017
Surjaram Godara S/o Sh. Govind Ram Godara, Aged About 48
Years, Resident of Kalyansar Naya, Tehsil Sridungargarh, District
Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Bikaner.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Secondary School, Kalyansar Naya, Tehsil Sridungargarh, District
Bikaner.
6. Gram Panchayat Kalyansar Naya, Panchayat Samiti
Sridungargarh, District Bikaner Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12419 / 2017
1. Neelam Devi D/o Sh. Shivraj Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident of House No. C-38, Sector No. 6L, Ward No. 43, District
Hanumangarh. (Rajasthan).
2. Soni Kaur D/o Sh. Major Singh, W/o Sh. Resham Singh, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident of Chak Bursinghwala, Tehsil & District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan)
(30 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Satipura, Tehsil Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Satipura, Panchayat Samiti Hanumangarh
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12420 / 2017
1. Devendra Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 07, Dholipal, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh.
2. Vijay Kumari D/o Sh. Ram Karan, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 4, Village Dholipal, Tehsil & District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh.
(Rajasthan)
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.(Rajasthan)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Dholipal, Tehsil Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Dholipal, Panchayat Samiti Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12422 / 2017
Dhanraj Meghwal S/o Gena Ram, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste
Meghwal, Resident of V/p Sarunda, Panchayat Samittee Panchu,
Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
(31 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Zila Parishad, Bikaner Through Its Chief Executive Officer,
Bikaner.
3. Gram Panchayat Sarunda, Panchayat Samitee Panchu, District
Bikaner Through Its Secretary Cum Gram Sevak.
4. School Development and Management Committee,
Government, Sarunda, Panchayat Samittee Panchu, District
Bikaner Through Its Principal Cum Panchayat Elementary
Education Officer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12428 / 2017
1. Shiv Lal Bishnoi S/o Shri Harbhaj Ram, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Village Khindasar, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner, (Raj.).
2. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Karnidan, R/o Village Khindasar, Tehsil
Kolayat, District Bikaner, (Raj.).
3. Manohar Singh S/o Shri Sujan Singh, R/o Village Gokul Tehsil
Kolayat, District Bikaner (Raj.)
4. Devgiree Goswamee S/o Shri Chaman Giree, R/o Village
Sastrinagar, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner (Raj.)
5. Bhom Singh Bhati S/o Shri Mehtab Singh Bhati, R/o Village
Gugatsinghpura, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner, (Raj.)
6. Loondan Deval S/o Shri Punjdan Deval, R/o Village 6/8 AM
Santoshnagar, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
7. Kushal Singh S/o Shri Asu Singh, R/o Village Hadan, Tehsil
Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
8. Khet Singh S/o Shri Hathi Singh, R/o Village Hadan, Tehsil
Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
9. Subhash S/o Shri Magaram, R/o Village Bheloo, Tehsil Kolayat
District Bikaner (Raj.)
10. Gajraj Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Village Bheloo, Tehsil
Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
11. Uttam Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh, R/o Village Bhloori, Tehsil
(32 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
12. Omaram S/o Shri Khumaram, Village Bhloori, Tehsil Kolayat
District Bikaner (Raj.)
13. Om Prakash Khicher S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Khicher, R/o Village
Mankasar, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
14. Subhash Chandra Bhadu S/o Shri Mohan Lal Bhadu, R/o
Village Mankasar, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
15. Kailash Manjhu S/o Shri Bakta Ram, R/o Village Phoolasar
Chhota, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
16. Ramesh Kumar Bishnoi S/o Shri Bhajana Ram, R/o Village
Phoolasar Chhota, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
17. Radha Kirshan Bhambhu S/o Shri Padam Singh Bhambhu, R/o
Bajju Tejpura,tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
18. Shokat Ali S/o Shri Gullu Khan, R/o Village Bangarsar, Tehsil
Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
19. Shiv Bhagwan S/o Shri Keshawara Ram, R/o Village Jaggasar/
Bijjri, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
20. Jana Kumari Charan D/o Khemdan Charan, R/o 22 SMD,
Miranwala, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
21. Chhailu Dan Saran S/o Shri Maheshdan, R/o Village Ratwariya
Post Dharnok, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
22. Awar Singh Charan S/o Shri Keshudan Charan, R/o Sathika,
Post Dharnok, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
23. Nandkishore Sharma S/o Shri Har Narayan, R/o Ambasar, Post
Udairamsar, Tehsil & District Bikaner.
24. Antu Ram Sharma S/o Rameshwar Lal, R/o Village & Post
Kankandwala, Tehsil Udairamsar, Tehsil & District Bikaner.
25. Ajit Singh S/o Shri Hanet Singh, R/o Village Ramda, Tehsil
Kolayat District Bikaner (Raj.)
26. Palaram Bawari S/o Shri Karatar Singh, R/o Charwanwala,
Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
(33 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bikaner,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Kolayat, District
Bikaner.
6. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Bikaner, District
Bikaner.
7. The Block Elementary Education Officer Lunkaransar, District
Bikaner.
8. The Block Elementary Education Officer Panchu, District
Bikaner.
9. The Block Development Officer, Kolayat, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12429 / 2017
1. Prakash Chandra S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
By Caste Jat, Resident of Village Asarniya, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
2. Phusa Ram S/o Sh. Mani Ram, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste
Jat, Resident of Village Kikarli, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of School
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer Elementary, District Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
(34 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
6. Gram Panchayat Kikrali, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Gramsevak
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12432 / 2017
Madhuri D/o Shri Rameshwarlal W/o Shri Balwan Singh, Aged
About 28 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident of Village Rajpuria, Gram
Panchayat Gudia, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of School
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer Elementary, District Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12433 / 2017
Mahendra Fadoliya S/o Shri Lal Chand, Aged About 29 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident of Village & Gram Panchayat, Fefana, Tehsil
Nohar, Distirct Hanumangahr.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of School
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer, Elementary, District Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
(35 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
6. Gram Panchayat Fefana, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, Distirct
Hanumangarh, Through Its Gramsevak.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12439 / 2017
Dinesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 32 Years,
By Caste Jat, Resident of Ward No. 14, Gandhi Chowk, Nokha,
District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Zila Parishad, Bikaner Through Its Chief Executive Officer,
Bikaner.
3. Gram Panchayat Bikasar, Panchayat Samittee Nokha, District
Biakner Through Its Secretary Cum Gram Sevak.
4. School Development and Management Committee,
Government, Bikasar, Panchayat Samittee Nokha, District Bikaner
Through Its Principal Cum Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12441 / 2017
1. Sarvan Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Lal, Aged About 23 Years, By
Caste Goswami, Resident of Village Birkali, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
2. Main Pal S/o Sh. Ramji Lal, By Caste Jat, Resident of Village
Birkali, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of School
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer Elementary, District Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
(36 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Birkali, Panchat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Gramsevak
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12442 / 2017
1. Manoj Kumar S/o Surendra Kumar, Aged About 24 Years, By
Caste Sharma, Resident of VPO Manderpura, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
2. Yayab S/o Ganni Khan, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste Muslim,
Resident of Resident of VPO Manderpura, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Primary, Hanumangarh.
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat Manderpura, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Secretary.
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh
Senior Secondary School, Manderpura, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12443 / 2017
Banwari Lal S/o Hadmana Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Bishnoi, Resident of V/p Kudasu, Panchayat Samittee Nokha,
District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
(37 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
2. Zila Parishad, Bikaner Through Its Chief Executive Officer,
Bikaner.
3. Gram Panchayat Kudasu, Panchayat Samittee Nokha, District
Biakner Through Its Secretary Cum Gram Sevak.
4. School Development and Management Committee,
Government, Kudasu, Panchayat Samittee Nokha, District Bikaner
Through Its Principal Cum Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12445 / 2017
Jagdish Prasad Kumar S/o Kishna Ram Kumhar, Aged About 46
Years, By Caste Kumhar, Resident of V/p Bhadla, Panchayat
Samittee Panchu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Zila Parishad, Bikaner Through Its Chief Executive Officer,
Bikaner.
3. Gram Panchayat Bhadla, Panchayat Samittee Panchu, District
Bikaner Through Its Secretary Cum Gram Sevak.
4. School Development and Management Committee,
Government, Bhadla, Panchayat Samitee Panchu, District Bikaner
Through Its Principal Cum Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12446 / 2017
Mahendra Pal Nehra S/o Ram Singh, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caste Kumhar, Resident of 10 DPN Gogamedi, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
(38 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
2. District Education Officer, Primary, Hanumangarh.
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat Gogamedi, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Secretary
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government of Adarsh
Senior Secondary School, Gogamedi, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12447 / 2017
Sumer Singh S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste
Rajput, Resident of V/p Shobhana, Panchayat Samittee Panchu,
Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Zila Parishad, Bikaner Through Its Chief Executive Officer,
Bikaner.
3. Gram Panchayat Shobhana, Panchayat Samittee Panchu,
District Bikaner Through Its Secretary Cum Gram Sevak.
4. School Development and Management Committee,
Government, Shobhana, Panchayat Samittee Panchu, District
Bikaner Through Its Principal Cum Panchayat Elementary
Education Officer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12449 / 2017
Manohar Nath S/o Rugh Nath, Aged About 33 Years, Resident of
V/p Kakku, Panchayat Samitee Panchu, Tehsil Nokha, District
Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
(39 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
2. Zila Parishad, Bikaner Through Its Chief Executive Officer,
Bikaner.
3. Gram Panchayat Kakku, Panchayat Samitee Panchu, District
Bikaner Through Its Secretary Cum Gram Sevak.
4. School Development and Managerment Committee,
Government, Kakku, Panchayat Samittee Panchu, District Bikaner
Through Its Principal Cum Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12468 / 2017
Laxman Lal Sharma S/o Shri Magan Lal Sharma, Aged About 33
Years, Resident of F/8, Brahmpuri Colony, Abu Raod, District Sirohi
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Panchayat Raj
Department, Secretairat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).
4. District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Dist. - Sirohi
(Raj.).
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur.
6. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Abu Road,
Dist. - Sirohi (Raj.)
7. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer/ Chairman Cum
Principal, School Develoment Management Committee, Govt. Sr.
Secondary School, Surpagla, Panchayat Samiti Abu Road, Dist.
Sirohi (Raj.).
8. Mukta Modh D/o Rasik Modh (Headmaster), By Caste Ganchi,
Resident of B-76, RIICO Colony, Abu Road, Dist. Sirohi (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12497 / 2017
Basanti Delu D/o Sh. Dhuda Ram Delu, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Likhmisar Dikhnada, Tehsil Dungargarh, Distict Bikaner.
(40 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt. Sr.
Secondary School. Gram Panchayat Likhmisar Dikhnada Panchayat
Samiti Dungargarh, District Bikaner
6. Gram Panchayat Likhmisar Dikhnada, Panchayat Samiti
Dungargarh, District Bikaner Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12498 / 2017
1. Prahlad Singh S/o Shri Amar Chand, Aged About 28 Years, By
Caste Rajpurohit, Resident of Laxmanpura, Gram Panchayat
Junapatrasar, Tehsil & District Barmer.
2. Prakash Chandra Vagela S/o Shri Sona Ram Vagela, Aged About
35 Years, By Caste Bheel, Resident of VPO Junapatrasar, Tehsil &
District Barmer.
3. Ratan Lal S/o Shri Gordhan Das, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste
Meghwal, Resident of VPO Jasai, Tehsil & District Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer,
Rajasthan.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Barmer District
Barmer.
(41 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
5. Gram Panchayat Junpatrasar, Panchayat Samiti Barmer District
Barmer Through Its Secretary.
6. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (PEEO), Gram
Panchayat Junpatrasar, Panchayat Samiti Barmer District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12504 / 2017
1. Swarn Singh S/o Shri Darshan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caste Jat Sikh, Resident of Ward No. 10, Sadasinghwala (Ramana
Chak), Tehsil Pilibanga District Hanumangarh.
2. Amandeep Kaur D/o Shri Harpal Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh,
Resident of Ward No. 7, Dabliwas Kutub, Tehsil & District
Hanumangarh.
3. Sulekha Choudhary W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar, Resident of Ward
No. 1, VPO Longwala, Tehsil Pilibanga District Hanumangarh.
4. Anjali Jindal D/o Shri Rajendra Jindal, By Caste Arora, Resident
of Ward No. 17, Mandi Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga District
Hanumangarh.
5. Kulvindra Singh S/o Shri Mada Singh, By Caste Majbi Sikh,
Resident of Ward No. 12, Dabliwas Molvi, Tehsil & District
Hanumangarh.
6. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal, B Caste Nai, Resident of
Ward No. 10, Dabliwas Pema, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Hanumangarh.
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Pilibanga District
Hanumangarh.
(42 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12505 / 2017
Shankar Ram S/o Shri Bhura Ram, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste
Devasi, Resident of VPO Thapan, Tehsil Siwana District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer,
Rajasthan.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Balotra District
Barmer.
5. Gram Panchayat Kitpala, Panchayat Samiti Balotra District
Barmer Through Its Secretary.
6. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (PEEO), Gram
Panchayat Kitpala, Panchayat Samiti Balotra District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12522 / 2017
Susheel Tada S/o Ram Kishore Tada, Aged About 28 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident of VPO Basni Sejan, Tehsil Merta City, District
Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Primary, Nagaur.
3. District Collector, Nagaur.
4. Gram Panchayat Basni Sejan, Panchayat Samit Merta City,
District Nagaur, Through Its Secretary.
(43 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh
Senior Senior Secondary School, Basni Sejan, Tehsil Merta City,
District Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12526 / 2017
1. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Desa Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident of Post Velangari, Tehsil District Sirohi (Raj.)
2. Narpat Singh S/o Hameer Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident
of Post Velangari, Tehsil District Sirohi (Raj.)
3. Laxman Lal Sharma S/o Shri Desa Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident of Post Velangari, Tehsil District Sirohi (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
4. District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Dist- Sirohi
(Raj.)
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sirohi.
6. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sirohi,
Dist- Sirohi (Raj.)
7. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Abu Road,
Dist- Sirohi (Raj.)
8. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer/ Chairmen Cum
Principal, School Development Management Committee, Govt. Sr.
Secondary School, Velangari, Panchayat Samiti Sirohi, Dist. Sirohi
(Raj.)
9. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer/ Chairmen Cum
Principal, School Development Management Committee, Govt. Sr.
Secondary School, Surpagla, Panchayat Samiti Abu Road, Dist.
Sirohi (Raj.)
----Respondents
(44 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12528 / 2017
1. Ashok Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident of Village Gingaliya, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur.
2. Chaina Ram Godara S/o Shri Dhanna Ram Godara, Aged About
37 Years, Resident of Village Gingaliya, Tehsil Makrana, District
Nagaur.
3. Suresh Ram Jat S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident of Village Itawa Lakha, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. District Collector, Nagaur.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur, Nagaur.
6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
7. President, School Development and Management Committee
(SDMC), Itawalakha, Panchayat Samiti Makrana, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12563 / 2017
Prem Sharma D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 28
Years, Resident of Parlika, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(45 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Hanumangarh
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nohar District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12585 / 2017
1. Ranjeet Bharti S/o Shri Girdhari Bharti, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Setharam Chowk, Mathania, Tehsil- Tinwari, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Babu Lal Sankhla S/o Shri Om Prakash Sankhla, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Near Railway Fatak, Mathania, Tehsil- Tinwari, District-
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Amit Kumar Halu S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Near Railway Fatak, Mathania, Tehsil- Tinwari, District-
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajathan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Jodhpur.
4. The Principal, Aadarsh Government Senior Secondary School
Mathania, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12589 / 2017
1. Geeta Bishnoi D/o Shri Birbal Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Moolraj, Panchayat Samiti, Lohawat, District Jodhpur.
2. Baksa Ram S/o Budha Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Jaaniyon
Ki Dhani, Nosar, District Jodhpur.
3. Ravindra Kumar S/o Manohar Ram Khichar, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Moolraj, Panchayat Samiti, Lohawat, District Jodhpur.
4. Sumitra Panwar D/o Bhagirath Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Moolraj, Panchayat Samiti, Lohawat, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
(46 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur,
District- Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur, District-
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Lohawat, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12591 / 2017
1. Shrawan Kumar S/o Mangu Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident of Bhinchawa, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur.
2. B. Virendra S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident
of Bhinchawa, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. District Collector, Nagaur.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur, Nagaur.
6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
7. President, School Development and Management Committee
(SDMC), Bhinchawa, Panchayat Samiti Makrana, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12592 / 2017
1. Matadeen Saran S/o Shri Panchu Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
(47 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Resident of Khedi Lila, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur.
2. Premsukh S/o Shri Bhagu Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident
of Dobdi Kalan, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur.
3. Bimla Devi W/o Shri Suresh Dhayal, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident of Dobdi Kalan, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. District Collector, Nagaur.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur, Nagaur.
6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
7. President, School Development and Management Committee
(SDMC), Dobadi Kalan, Panchayat Samiti Makrana, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12593 / 2017
Moduram Bhinchar S/o Shri Moba Ram Bhinchar, Aged About 22
Years, Resident of Lalana Kalan, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. District Collector, Nagaur.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur, Nagaur
6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
(48 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
7. President, School Development and Management Committee
(SDMC), Bhadwa, Panchayat Samiti Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12596 / 2017
Mahesh Bhakar S/o Shaitana Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village & Post Igyar, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government
Secretary, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur.
5. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
6. The Primary Elementary Education Officer, Gram Panchayat
Lunsara, Panchayat Samiti Mundwa, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12597 / 2017
1. Shribhagwan Sharma S/o Shri Ramgopal Sharma, Aged About
22 Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident of Village Kharesh, Gram
Panchayat Kharesh, Tehsil and Panchayat Samiti Deedwana,
District Nagour.
2. Gopal Ram Thalod S/o Shri Ganesha Ram, Aged About 28
Years, By Caste Jat, Resident of Village Bakawas, Gram Panchayat
Kharesh, Tehsil and Panchayat Samiti Deedwana, District Nagaur.
3. Samita D/o Shri Heera, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste Jat,
Resident of Village Bakawas, Gram Panchayat Kharesh, Tehsil and
Panchayat Samiti Deedwana, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of School
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(49 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
2. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer Elementary, District Nagour.
4. Chief Executive (CEO), Zila Parishad, Nagour
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Deedwana,
District Nagour.
6. Gram Panchayat Kharesh, Panchayat Samiti Deedwana, District
Nagour, Thruogh Its Gram Sewak.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12599 / 2017
1. Mukesh Fagodiya S/o Shri Rameswar Lal, Aged About 31 Years,
By Caste Jat, Resident of Village Kalwani, Gram Panchayat
Kalwani, Tehsil and Panchayat Samiti Deedwana, District Nagour.
2. Ram Raghunath S/o Shri Surja Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident of Village Ambasa, Gram Panchayat Kalwani,
Tehsil and Panchayat Samiti Deedwana, District Nagour.
3. Bhura Ram S/o Shri Gangaram, Aged About 39 Years, By Caste
Megwal, Resident of Village Girdaraipura, Gram Panchayat
Kalwani, Tehsil and Panchayat Samiti Deedwana, District Nagour.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of School
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer Elementary, District Nagour.
4. Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Parishad, Nagour.
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Deedwana,
District Nagour.
6. Gram Panchayat Kalwani, Panchayat Samiti Deedwana, District
Nagour. Through Its Gram Sewak
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12607 / 2017
(50 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Ramdayal Dholiya S/o Shri Deraj Ram Dholiya, Aged About 37
Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village Panchayat Dehru, P.S. Khinvsar, Tehsil
Mundwa, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education (Elementary), Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur, District
Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12620 / 2017
1. Kamlesh S/o Shri Shyojinath, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste
Yogi, Resident of Village Kuni Gram Panchayat Chosala, Tehsil and
Panchayat Samiti Nawa, District Nagour.
2. Moti Ram Gurjar S/o Shri Nanda Ram Gurjar, By Caste Gurjar,
Resident of Village Bhatipura, Gram Panchayat Chosala, Tehsil and
Panchayat Samiti Nawa, District Nagour.
3. Gopal Ram Babar S/o Shri Ramlal Babar, By Caste Magwal,
Resident of Village Kuni, Gram Panchayat Chosala, Tehsil and
Panchayat Samiti Nawa, District Nagour.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of School
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer Elementary, District Nagour.
4. Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Parishad, Nagour.
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nawa, District
Nagour
(51 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
6. Gram Panchayat Chosala, Panchayat Samiti Nawa, District
Nagour. Through Its Gram Sewak.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12623 / 2017
1. Ajaypal Khoja S/o Sukhram Khoja, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Village & Post Farrod, District Nagaur (Raj.).
2. Ganpati D/o Mohanram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village &
Post Rol, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.)
3. Dayalram Meghwal S/o Bija Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Village & Post Farrod, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government
Secretary, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur.
5. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
6. The Primary Elementary Education Officer, Gram Panchayat
Farrod, Panchayat Samiti Jayal, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12664 / 2017
1. Ashok Singh S/o Shri Sharawan Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Village Purohiton Ki Dhani, Chainpura, Tehsil, Lohawat, Distt.
Jodhpur (Raj).
2. Om Singh S/o Shri Dalpat Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Purohiton Ki Dhani, Chainpura, Tehsil, Lohawat, Distt.
Jodhpur (Raj).
3. Mohd. Ameen S/o Mefu Khan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village
Purohiton Ki Dhani, Chainpura, Tehsil, Lohawat, Distt. Jodhpur
(Raj).
----Petitioners
(52 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur (Raj).
3. The Development Officer, Panchyat Samiti Lohawat, District
Jodhpur (Raj).
4. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer, Government Senior
Secondary School, Chainpura, Teh. Lohawat, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12666 / 2017
1. Mahaveer Singh S/o Shri Durg Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Benti Kala, Tehsil Phalodi, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. Farooq S/o Shri Ata Mohd., Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village
Benti Kala, Tehsil Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Saleem Khan S/o Shri IIamdeen., Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village Benti Kala, Tehsil Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Lohawat, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
4. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer Government Senior
Secondary School, Sihara, Teh. Phalodi, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12667 / 2017
1. Bhagirath S/o Shri Dhannaram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village Sihara, Tehsil Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj).
2. Girdhar Singh Bhati S/o Shri Anop Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village Sihara, Tehsil Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj).
----Petitioners
Versus
(53 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur (Raj).
3. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Lohawat, District,
Jodhpur (Raj).
4. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer, Government Senior
Secondary School, Sihara, Teh. Phalodi, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12669 / 2017
1. Guman Singh Gehlot S/o Ummed Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
Resident of Shanti Nagar Sheoganj, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi
(Raj.)
2. Madan Gopal S/o Shanker Dass, Aged About 31 Years, Resident
of VPO Village Chuli, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi (Raj.)
3. Rajendra Kumar S/o Ruparam, Aged About 35 Years, Resaident
of VPO Village Alpa, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Primary, Sirohi.
3. District Collector, Sirohi.
4. Gram Panchayat Alpa, Panchayat Samiti Sheoganj, District
Sirohi, Through Its Secretary.
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Senior
Secondary School, Alpa, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12679 / 2017
1. Dinesh Puniya S/o Shri Bhika Ram, Aged About 23 Years, By
Caste Bishnoi, R/o Navodiya School, Village Tilwasani, Tehsil Pipar,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Mahender S/o Shri Jora Ram, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste
Bishnoi, R/o Padiyalo Ka Bas, Tilvasani, Tehsil Pipar, District
(54 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
3. Gangavishan S/o Shri Ramrakh, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Bishnoi, R/o Ghanmagra Road, Tilvasani, Tehsil Pipar, District
Jodhpur Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Jodhpur.
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Pipar City, Jodhpur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12680 / 2017
1. Sharda Devi D/o Shri Goparam, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward
No. 5, VPO Fatehgarh (Khileribas), Tehsil and District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. Simerpal Kaur D/o Shri Labh Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Ward No. 1, Fatehgarh (Khileribas), Tehsil and District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
3. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education),
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat, Fatehgarh, Panchayat Samiti Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
(55 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Fatehgarh, Panchayat Samiti, Hanumangarh District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12681 / 2017
1. Lovedeep Singh S/o Shri Jaspal Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident of Bhagatpura, Tehsil Sangaria District Hanumangarh.
2. Shilpa D/o Shri Balbahadur, Resident of Ward No. 21, Sangaria
Tehsil Sangaria District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sangaria District
Hanumangarh.
5. Gram Panchayat Bhagatpura, Panchayat Samiti Sangaria
District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
6. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (PEEO), Gram
Panchyayat Bhagatpura, Panchayat Samiti Sangaria District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12682 / 2017
Santosh Kumari D/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bansa,
(Nagaur), Moulasar, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, Secretariat, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(56 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
3. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education), Nagaur,
District Nagaur.
4. Gram Panchayat Moulasar, Panchayat Samiti Didwana, District
Nagaur Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Moulasar, Panchayat Samiti,didwana District Nagaur
Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (PEEO).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12685 / 2017
1. Mana Ram S/o Shri Birbal Ram, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste
Bishnoi, R/o Village Vijay Nagar, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
2. Gopa Ram S/o Shri Ghamu Ram, Aged About 29 Years, By
Caste Bishnoi, R/o Village- Vijay Nagar, Tehsil Phalodi, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Phalodi, Jodhpur
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Jodhpur
6. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
7. Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur Through
Commissioner.
8. Authorised Officer Cum Tehsildar (east)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12686 / 2017
Kiran D/o Shri Chenaram, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste-
(57 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Meghwal, Resident of Village- Thanu, Tehsil - Deedwana, District -
Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
3. District Education Officer (Elementary), Nagaur.
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Deedwana, District
Nagaur.
5. Gram Panchayat Thanu, Tehsil- Deedwana, District - Nagaur
Through Sarpanch.
6. Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat Thanu, Tehsil- Deedwana, District
- Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12688 / 2017
1. Yogesh S/o Sitaram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o - Kumharo Ka
Baas, Khiwsar, District - Nagaur
2. Nahida Praveen D/o Kifayat Hussain, R/o - Kangar Wara, Near
Samas Talab Ki Bari, Ajmeri Gate, Nagaur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12694 / 2017
1. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 30 Years, R/O
Village/Post Goyli Teh. Sirohi, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
(58 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
2. Krishna Soni D/o Shri Parkash Soni, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
NilwaniChokchipaHOliSirohi, Dist. Sirohi.
3. Narayan Lal S/o Shri Hukama Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Village/Post GoyliTeh. Sirohi, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
4. The Surpanch Gram Panchayat Goliya, Dist. Shirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12696 / 2017
Kavita Tailor D/o Shri Damodar Tailor, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Mehrana Post Javla Teh. Degana District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagour.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Nagour.
4. The Gram Panchayat Rajlota, Degana, Dist. Nagour.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12718 / 2017
Sharwan Ram Jajra S/o Shri Bopa Ram Jajra, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Jaroda, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagour (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(59 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagour,
District Nagour, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagour District
Nagour, Rajasthan.
5. The Block Elementary Education Officer Merta City, Distric
Nagour.
6. Gram Panchayat Jaroda, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagour Its
Through Secretary SDMC
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12832 / 2017
Jagdish Ram S/o Shri Ratti Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village
Fatehsar, Post Satheran, Tehsil and District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer (Elementary), Nagaur.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
5. The Ex-Officio Panchayat Elementary Education Officer-cum-
Headmaster, School Development and Management Committee,
Government Secondary School, Hanuman Nagar, Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12889 / 2017
Monika D/o Shri Karni Singh Bhati W/o Shri Jaideep Singh, Aged
About 33 Years, Resident of Chak 1 MSD (A), Maggewali Dhani,
Post Office 7LC, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur.
(60 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
2. Dy. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Sri Ganganagar
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Suratgarh District
Sri Ganganagar.
7. School Development Management Committee, Government
Senior Secondary School, Fareedsar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12891 / 2017
Sarita D/o Shri Ramnarayan W/o Shri Sheetal Bishnoi, Aged About
29 Years, Resident of Village Kikarwali Johdi, Post 3FDM, Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar.
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Sri Ganganagar.
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Suratgarh District
Sri Ganganagar.
7. School Development Management Committee, Government
Senior Secondary School, Fareedsar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
(61 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12898 / 2017
Nirmala Bishnoi D/o Shri Harsukh Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Khabda Kalla, Tehsil Osiyan, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Education Officer (Elementary), Jodhpur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.
4. The Ex-Officio Panchayat Elementary Education Officer-cum-
Headmaster, School Development and Management Committee,
Government Senior Secondary School, Cherai, Panchayat Samiti
Tinwari, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12899 / 2017
1. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Choona Ram, Aged About 36 Years, By
Caste Jat, R/o Beri Jatanpura, Gram Panchayat Beri Khurd, Tehsil
Didwana, District Nagaur.
2. Aslam Banu D/o Shri Mazid Khan, Aged About 33 Years, By
Caste Muslim, R/o Beri Khurd, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur
3. Saddam Hussain Khan, S/o Shri Mohd. Yunus Khan, Aged About
25 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Beri Khurd, Tehsil Didwana,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education (Elementary), Jaipur
Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur District
Nagaur
5. Gram Panchayat Beri Khurd, Through Its Gram Sevak-cum-
Secretary, Gram Panchayat Beri Khurd Panchayat Samiti Didwana,
(62 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
District Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12902 / 2017
Ajay Ram Sargara S/o Late Bhaka Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Village Harni Amarapura Teh. Reodar, District Shirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
4. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer, Government Senior
Secondary School Jeerawal, Reodar, Dist. Shirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12925 / 2017
1. Amara Ram S/o Shri Asu Ram, Aged About 37 Years, V/p
Nimbaj Teh. Reodar, District Sirohi.
2. Bharat Singh S/o Shri Bheekh Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
Village Anapura Anapura, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi.
3. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Galba Ram Prajapat., Aged About 37
Years, V/p Nimbaj Teh. Reodar, District Sirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Sirohi.
4. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer Government Senior
Secondary School Nimbaj, Reodar, Dist. Sirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12926 / 2017
(63 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Dilip Singh S/o Shri Jailal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Jigasari Badi,
Ward No. 7, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, Secretariat, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
3. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education),
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat, Uttardabas, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Uttardabas, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12927 / 2017
Ram Prakash S/o Shri Suraj Karan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Oaladan, Tehsil Merta, District Nagour (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajathan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagour,
District-nagour, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagour District
Nagour, Rajasthan.
5. The Block Elementary Education Officer Merta City, District
Nagour.
6. Gram Panchayat Oaladan, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagour Its
Through Secretary SDMC
----Respondents
(64 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12946 / 2017
1. Rajee Ram Bhadu S/o Het Ram Bhadu, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village Dhani Chhiploi, Gram Panchayat Sabniya, Tehsil
Loonkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Chander Bhan Sharma S/o Dali Ram Sharma, R/o Village
Chakjod, Gram Panchayat Chakjod, P.O.- Arjansar, Tehsil
Loonkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Ram Kumar S/o Omprakash, R/o VPO Arjunsar, Tehsil
Loonkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Sher Singh Kalawat S/o Baghsingh, R/o Jaitpur, Tehsil
Loonkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Kishan Lal Poonia S/o Hanuman Poonia, R/o Ward No. 9, Village
Jaitpur, Post Jaitpur, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
6. Ram Swaroop S/o Durja Ram, R/o Village Sabniya, Gram
Panchayat Sabniya, PO Jaitpur, Tehsill Loonkaransar, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
7. Jaswant Ram S/o Veer Bhan, R/o VPO Chakjod, Gram
Panchayat Chakjod, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
8. Om Prakash Siyag S/o Mani Ram Siyag, R/o VPO Mithria, P.O.
Arjansar, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
9. Arjun Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Village Raner, Tehsil
Loonkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director (Primary) Education, Bikaner.
4. The Director (Secondary), Education, Bikaner.
5. The District Collector, Bikaner.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.
(65 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
7. The District Education Officer (Primary), Bikaner.
8. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gram
Panchayat, Sabniya, Panchayat Samiti Loonkaransar, District
Bikaner.
9. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gram
Panchayat Chakjod, Panchayat Samiti Loonkaransar, District
Bikaner.
10. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gram
Panchayat Arjunsar, Panchayat Samiti Loonkaransar, District
Bikaner.
11. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gram
Panchayat Jaitpur, Panchayat Samiti Loonkaransar, District
Bikaner.
12. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education, Gram Panchayat
Raner 11 S.L.D., Panchayat Samiti Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12965 / 2017
1. Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village Koodsoo, Block Panchu, Tehsil Nokha District Bikaner
(Raj.).
2. Nathu Ram Bishnoi S/o Shri Harchand Ram, R/o Ward No. 02
Ugampura, Nokha District Bikaner. (Raj.)
3. Kishna Ram Meghwal S/o Bhaira Ram, R/o Village Kanwlisar,
Block Panchu, Tehsil Nokha District Bikaner, (Raj.)
4. Nand Kishore Brahman S/o Bhanwar Lal Brahman, R/o Village
Udasar, Block Panchu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
5. Padma Ram S/o Dhana Ram, R/o Chitana, Block Panchu, Tehsil
Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
6. Balweer Prasad Prajapat S/o Jesha Ram, R/o Village Berasar,
Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
7. Kishan Lal S/o Bhajain Lal, R/o Village Saisar, Block Panchu,
Tehsil Nokha District Bikaner, (Raj.).
8. Meghraj Garg S/o Mansukh Ram Garg, R/o Village Panchu,
Block Panch, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
9. Mool Chand Purohit S/o Kheenv Chand, R/o Village
Gajroopdesar, Sova, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, (Raj.).
(66 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
10. Santosh Kumar Sadh S/o Jagdish Prasad Sadh, R/o Village
Sinjguru, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
11. Mahaveer Singh S/o Sukhdan, R/o Village Bikasar, Tehsil,
Nokha, District Bikaner, (Raj.).
12. Mukesh Kumar Dadhich S/o Panna Lal Dadhich, R/o Village
Nokha Gaon, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, (Raj.).
13. Mangoo Singh Rathore S/o Ganga Singh Rathore, R/o Village
Sinjguru, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
14. Ashok Kumar Bishnoi S/o Rupa Ram Bishnoi, R/o Village
Nimriyasar, Post Himmtsar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
15. Sunil Kumar Karwasara S/o Har Chand Karwasara, R/o Village
Ghattu, Post Salundiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
16. Vishwnath Kothari S/o Om Prakesh Kothari, R/o Berasar, Tehsil
Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.)
17. Ramjan Teli S/o Ajeemdeen, Teli, R/o Village Kakkoo, Block
Panchu Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.)
18. Ganga Ram Kumhar S/o Sohan Ram Kumhar, R/o Village
Bhadla, Block Panchu Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
19. Ishwer Ram Jandhu S/o Kumbha Ram Jandhu, R/o Village
Ankhisar Post Himmatsar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajathan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bikaner,
District- Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. The Block Elementary Education Officer Panchu, District
Bikaner.
6. The Block Elementary Education Officer Nokha, District Bikaner.
7. The Block Development, Officer, Panchu, District Bikaner.
(67 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
8. The Block Development, Officer, Nokha, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13005 / 2017
1. Lila Dhar Sahu Son of Mohan Lal Sahu, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident of VPO Lalamdesar Bara, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
2. Kalu Ram Son of Keshu Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident of
VPO Lalamdesar Bara, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Education Department Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. District Education Officer Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.
5. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nokha,
District Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13023 / 2017
1. Hemraj Gaur S/o Shri Moolchand Gaur, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident of Village- Jakheda, Panchayat Samiti- Degana, District-
Nagaur (Rajasthan).
2. Smt. Chand Kanwar W/o Narendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
By Caste- Rajput, Resident of Village- Jakheda, Panchayat Samiti-
Degana, District- Nagaur (Rajasthan).
3. Ramesh Prajapat S/o Shri Hanuman Prajapat, Aged About 25
Years, By Caste- Prajapat, Resident of Village- Jakheda, Panchayat
Samiti- Degana, District- Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
(68 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
3. District Education Officer (Elementary), Nagaur.
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Degana, District-
Nagaur.
5. Gram Panchayat Jakheda, Tehsil- Degana, District- Nagaur
Through Sarpanch.
6. Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat Jakheda, Tehsil- Degana, District-
Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13026 / 2017
Mansukh Lal S/o Chauthmal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Gram
Fogari, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Nagaur.
4. The President SDMC and Panchayat Education Officer,
Government Secondary School Fogari, Gram Panchayat Fogari,
Tehsil Didwana, Dist. Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13040 / 2017
1. Anju Devi D/o Shri Ishwar Ram, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste
Jat, Resident of VPO Bhagwanpura, Tehsil Nawan District Nagaur.
2. Pappu Ram Khokhar S/o Shri Suwa Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
By Caste Jat, Resident of VPO Bhagwanpura, Tehsil Nawan District
Nagaur.
3. Bhuli Devi D/o Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste
Jat, Resident of VPO Bhagwanpura, Tehsil Nawan District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
(69 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
2. Dy. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Nagaur.
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nawan District
Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13119 / 2017
Maya D/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 21 Years, Resident of
Chak 10 KWD, Bhakhrawala, Tehsil Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Hanumangarh.
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh.
7. School Development Management Committee, Government
Senior Secondary School, 10 KWD, Bhakhrawali Tehsil Rawatsar,
District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13167 / 2017
1. Ray Singh S/o Shri Het Ram, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste
Khati, Resident of Village Pichkarai, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
(70 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
2. Bajindra Kumar S/o Sh. Nathu Ram, Aged About 40 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident of Village Pichkarai, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of School
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer Elementary, District Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, (CEO), Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Pichkarai, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Gramsevak.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13192 / 2017
1. Hariram Son of Shri Champaram, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident of Sindhari Chonsira, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer.
2. Om Singh Son of Shri Jait Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident
of Village Mithoda, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer.
3. Mahendra Kumar Son of Shri Pokarram, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident of Mithoda, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer.
4. Kistura Ram Son of Shri Jagram, Resident of Chandera, Tehsil
Pachpadra, District Barmer.
5. Panna Lal Son of Shri Rugha Ram, Resident of Leelala, Tehsil
Baytu, District Barmer.
6. Jetha Ram Son of Shri Sona Ram, Resident of Rateu, Tehsil
Gida, District Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
(71 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
4. District Education Officer (Elementary), Barmer.
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Siwana District
Barmer.
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Baytu District
Barmer.
7. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sindhari,
District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13216 / 2017
Kamlesh Kumar S/o Sh. Arjun Ram Bose, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o V/p Panawashpura, Post Jajwa, Tehsil Gira, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural Development &
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, District
Barmer.
3. The District Collector, Barmer.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer.
5. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Gira,
District Barmer.
6. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer Cum Principal Govt.
Higher Secondary School Jajwa, Panchayat Samiti Gira District
Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13241 / 2017
Asu Ram S/o Vagta Ram, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Meghwal R/o
Bandi Dhora, Panavada, Tehsil Baitu, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
(72 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Barmer
4. The President SDMC and Panchayat Education Officer,
Government Higher Secondary School Panavda, Gram Panchayat
Panavda, Tehsil Baitu, Dist. Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13261 / 2017
1. Tarun Kumar Chitara S/o Shri Ganpat Lal Chitara, Aged About
37 Years, R/o UIT Colony, F- 43, Behind Ambedker Park,
Pratapnagar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. Dharma Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Ammaram Choudhary, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village Paladi Manglia, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Rukmani W/o Shri Deeparam, Aged About 23 Years, R/o House
No. 67 Paladi Manglia, Tehsil & District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Mandore, District
Jodhpur.
6. The President School Development and Management
Government Senior Secondary School Paladi Manglia, Gram
Panchayat Paladi Manglia, Panchayat Samiti Mandore District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(73 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13308 / 2017
Manoj Kumar Pareek S/o Shri Vishwamitra Pareek, Aged About 35
Years, Resident of Village- Silanwad, Via- Jayal, Tehsil- Ladnun,
District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
3. District Education Officer (Elementary), Nagaur.
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ladnoon, District
Nagaur.
5. Gram Panchayat Silanwad, Tehsil- Ladnoon, District- Nagaur
Through Sarpanch.
6. Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat Silanwad, Tehsil- Ladnoon,
District Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13342 / 2017
Anjana D/o Shri Ami Chand W/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 24
Years, Resident of VPO Dheerwas Bda, Tehsil Taranagar, District
Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy. Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu, District Churu
(Raj.)
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Churu, District Churu
(Raj.)
(74 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Taranagar District
Churu.
7. School Development Management Committee, Government
Aadarsh Senior Secondary School, Dheerwas Bda, Tehsil
Taranagar, District Churu.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13444 / 2017
Mamta D/o Shri Labhu Ram W/o Shri Rajeev, Aged About 32
Years, By Caste Jat, Resident of Village Khudala, Gram Panchayat
Khudala, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of School
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer Elementary, District Barmer.
4. Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Parishad Barmer.
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Gudamalani
District Barmer.
6. Gram Panchayat Khudala, Panchat Samiti Gudamalani, District
Barmer, Through Its Gramsevak
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13589 / 2017
Sunita D/o Shri Khema Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident of
Daboli Mithi, Post Rajpura, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
(75 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
4. District Collector, Nagaur.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur, Nagaur.
6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
7. President, School Development and Management Committee
(SDMC), Daboli Mithi, Panchayat Samiti Degana, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13658 / 2017
Lalit Kumar S/o Indramal, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste
Ghanchi, R/o Devendi, Devendi Road, Siwana, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayatraj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. Zila Parishad, Barmer, Through Its Chief Executive Officer.
3. District Collector, Barmer.
4. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13834 / 2017
Govind Ram S/o Shri Ratnaram, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste-
Dhojak, Resident of Village- Silanwad, Via- Jayal, Tehsil- Ladnun,
District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
3. District Education Officer (Elementary), Nagaur.
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ladnoon, District
Nagaur.
5. Gram Panchayat Silanwad, Tehsil Ladnoon, District- Nagaur
(76 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Through Sarpanch.
6. Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat Silanwad, Tehsil Ladnoon, District
Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13965 / 2017
Rajkumar S/o Panna Ram, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Huddo Ki Dhani, Bandi Dhora, Gram Panchayat Panavada, Tehsil
Baitu, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Barmer.
4. The President SDMC and Panchayat Education Officer,
Government Higher Secondary School Bandhi Dhora, Panavda,
Gram Panchayat Panavda, Tehsil Baitu, Dist. Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12365 / 2017
Anita Verma D/o Sh. Krishan Kumar, Wife of Sh. Ashish Kumar,
Aged About 24 Years, Resident of Village Post Chhani Badi Ward
No. 02, Tehsil Bhadra, Distirct Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Chhani Bari, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
(77 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
6. Gram Panchayat Chhani Bari, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12398 / 2017
Mahaveer Prasad S/o Sh. Ram Lal, Aged About 41 Years, Resident
of Ward No. 05, VPO Pakka Bhadwa, Tehsil & District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
5. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Pakka Bhadwa, Tehsil Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh.
6. Gram Panchayat Pakka Bhadwa, Panchayat Samiti
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14288 / 2017
Dungar Dan Son of Shri Ranidan, Aged About 39 Years, Resident
of Village Beenjasar, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau, District Barmer
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the Government
and Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Barmer.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer.
(78 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau, District Barmer.
6. Officiating Panchayat Elementary Education Officer - Cum
Chairman (Government Senior Secondary School), School
Development and Management Committee, Beenjasar, District
Barmer.
7. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Beenjasar, Panchayat Samiti
Dhanau, District Barmer.
8. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau,
District Barmer.
9. Gram Sevak-cum- Officiating Secretary, Gram Panchayat
Beenjasar, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14439 / 2017
Deepak Vishnoi Son of Shri Jeknaram Vishnoi, Aged About 23
Years, Resident of Village Bhalisar, Gram Panchayat Navatala
Rathoran, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau, District Barmer (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the Government
and Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Barmer
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau, District Barmer.
6. Officiating Panchayat Elementary Education Officer - Cum
Chairman (Government Senior Secondary School), School
Development and Management Committee, Navatala Rathoran,
Panchayat Samiti Dhanau, District Barmer
7. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Navatala Rathoran, Panchayat
Samiti Dhanau, District Barmer
8. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau,
District Barmer
(79 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
9. Gram Sevak - Cum - Officiating Secretary, Gram Panchayat
Navatala Rathoran, Panchayat Samiti Dhanau, District Barmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14501 / 2017
1. Shiv Lal S/o Chanda Ram, aged about 34 years, R/o Village
Lalasar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
2. Madan Lal S/o Surja Ram, aged about 36 years, R/o Village
Lalasar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bikaner,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Nokha, District
Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12333/ 2017
Veerpal Kaur d/o Mahendra Singh, aged about 41 years, r/o
Dabliwas Midharohi, Via Goluwala, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
(80 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
3. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat, Dabliwas Midharohi, Panchayat Samiti,
Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh through its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Dabliwas Midharohi, Panchayat Samiti, Pilibangan
District Hanumangarh through its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12341/ 2017
1. Baljinder Singh s/o Shri Makhan Singh, b/c Jat Sikh, aged about
25 years, r/o VPO Silwala Khurd, Tehsil Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. Ramandeep Kaur w/o Shri Sandeep Kumar, b/c Arora, aged
about 26 years, r/o VPO Silwala Khurd, Tehsil Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
3. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat, Silwara Khurd, Panchayat Samiti, Tibbi,
District Hanumangarh through its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Silwala Khurd, Panchayat Samiti, Tibbi District
Hanumangarh through its Panchayat Elementary Education Officer
(PEEO).
----Respondents
(81 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12272/ 2017
1. Arvind Singh s/o Shri Narayan Singh Deora, age about 31
years, V/P Sanwara, Teh.Reodar, District Shirohi.
2. Dinesh Kumar Prohit s/o
Shri Himmat Lal Prohit, age about 33 years, Village Asava Post
Udvaria, Teh.Reodar, District Shirohi.
3. Khagara Ram s/o Shri AnaRam age about 24 years, V/P
Sanwara Teh.Reodar, District Shirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
4. The Panchayat Primary
Education Officer, Government Senior Secondary School, Sanwara,
Reodar, Dist.Shirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12273/ 2017
1. Mittu Singh s/o Shri Jabbar Singh, age about 26 years Village
Dingar Post. Telpura Teh.Pindvara, District Shirohi.
2. Karnaram s/o Shri Talsaji, age about 48 years, V/P Telpura,
Teh.Pindvara, District Shirohi.
3. Anand Singh Deora s/o Shri Jalam Singh age about 33 years,
Village Silwara, Teh.Nandia, District Shirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shirohi.
3. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Shirohi.
(82 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
4. The Panchayat Primary
Education Officer, Government Senior Secondary School, Telpur,
Teh.Pindvara, Dist.Shirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15061/ 2017
Deepika Soda d/o Anand Singh Soda, age 22 years, b/c Rajput,
r/o Village Balsamad, Tehsil Ladnun, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
3. District Education Officer (Elementary), Nagaur.
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ladnun, District
Nagaur.
5. Gram Panchayat Balsamad, Tehsil Ladnun, District Nagaur,
through Sarpanch.
6. Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat, Balsamad, Tehsil Ladnun,
District Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15013/ 2017
Veeru Ram Meghwal s/o Foja Ram, age 40 years, r/o Village Tekra,
Tehsil Bap, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Education
Department, Govt.Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.
4.District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur.
(83 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
5. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Sinhada, Panchayat Samiti,
Bap, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12278/ 2017
Smt.Vijay Lakshmi Gaur d/o Vishnu Prasad Gaur, aged 34 years,
r/o Gandhipuri, Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of School
Education, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4.District Collector, Bhilwara.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara, Bhilwara.
6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bhilwara.
7. President, School Development and Management Committee
(SDMC), Borda Bavraiyan, Panchayat Samiti, Shahpura, District
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.K.R.Saharan, Mr.Mahendra Trivedi, Mr.Moti
Singh, Mr.D.S.Sodha, Mr.K.D.S.Bhati,
Mr.H.R.Chawla, Mr.B.S.Sandhu,
Mr.K.P.S.Bhati, Mr.M.S.Deora, Dr.Nikhil
Dungawat, Mr.J.S.Bhaleria, Mr.B.S.Deora,
Mr.Inderjeet Yadav, Mr.Tanwar Singh
Rathore, Mr.Sukesh Bhati, Mr.Kailash Jangid,
Mr.J.S.Khichi, Mr.H.R.Vishnoi, Mr.Ashvini
Swami, Mr.Rakesh Matoria, Mr.Shardul
Bishnoi, Mr.Vikas Bijarnia, Mr.Hanuman
Singh Bhati, Mr.Hanuman Singh Choudhary,
Mr.Jog Singh, Mr.Rajesh Parihar,
Mr.B.L.Bishnoi, Mr.Vikram Singh Bhawla,
Mr.S.R.Godara, Mr.Ramdev Potalia,
Mr.Mahaveer Bishnoi, Mr.I.R.Choudhary,
Mr.Shreekant Verma, Mr.Arjun Purohit,
(84 of 116)
[CW-12299/2017]
Mr.Kan Singh Oad, Mr.R.N.Choudhary,
Mr.Sudheer Sharma, Mr.B.S.Tanwar,
Mr.K.C.Choudhary, Mr.R.S.Choudhary,
Mr.Kailash Choudhary, Mr.K.P.Raj Singh,
Mr.Pritam Solanki, Mr.Shrawan Choudhary,
Mr.Tarun Dhaka, Mr.Sanjay Nahar,
Mr.A.D.Ujjwal.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.S.Ladrecha, Additional Advocate
General.
Mr.S.D.Goswami
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 27/11/2017
1. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12299/2017:-
"(i) That the action of the respondents of recommendation to fresh selection for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak in pursuant to the order dated 27.07.2017 (Annexure-6) may be declared illegal qua the petitioner and the petitioner may be permitted continue on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Bhangarh, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
(ii) That the respondents may be restrained not to issue new vacancy for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak for Gram Panchayat, Bhangarh.
(iii) That during the pendency of the writ petition if the respondents issued any fresh cancellation or selection order, same may also be quashed and set aside.
(iv) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and (85 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted to them."
2. For the purpose of the present adjudication, the facts are being taken from the leading case being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 12299/2017.
3. The respondents amended the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, while exercising the powers conferred by Section 102 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No.13 of 1994). The amended Rules were named as "The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016". As per the amended Rules, the amendment of Rule 258 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 was made, particularly after the existing sub-rule (2) of Rule 258, new sub-rule (3) was added. Thus, the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak was created, on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis, for Panchayat Office.
4. For the execution of sub-rule (3) of Rule 258, the respondents came out with a circular dated 08.11.2016. The said circular laid down the service conditions of the persons to be selected as Gram Panchayat Sahayak. For the purpose of such selection, the eligibility criteria was as follows:-
"Xzkke iapk;r lgk;d gsrq vgZrk,sa 1- vkosnd jktLFkku ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ] vtesj ls lhfu;j lSds.Mjh ;k blds led{k mRrh.kZ gksuk vko';d gSA 2- vkosnd dh vk;q 18 ls 40 o"kZ dh gksuh pkfg,A 3- vkosnd dk ftl xzke iapk;r gsrq p;u fd;k tk jgk gS] ls lcaf/kr (86 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] iapk;r lfefr dk LFkkuh; fuoklh gksuk vko';d gSA"
5. Similarly for termination of any candidate, the following four conditions have been laid down in the said circular dated 08.11.2016:-
"xzke iapk;r lgk;d dk i`Fkddj.k %&
(v);fn xzke iapk;r lgk;d nqjkpj.k dk nks"kh ik;k tkrk gS vFkok U;k;ky; }kjk nks"kh ik;s tkus ij mls ekuns; ls i`Fkd fd;k tk ldsxkA
(c) xzke iapk;r lgk;d ds dk;Z esa ykijokgh] f'kfFkyrk vFkok fdlh Hkh izdkj dh vfu;ferrk djus dk nks"kh ik;s tkus ij lacf/kr xzke iapk;r }kjk mls gVk;k tk ldsxkA ,slk djus ls iwoZ vkjksfir xzke iapk;r lgk;d dks lquokbZ dk ;qfDr;qDr volj vo'; fn;k tk;sxkA
(l) xzke iapk;r lgk;d ds LoSPNk ls vuqifLFkr jgus ij Hkh mls gVk;k tk ldsxkA
(n) xzke iapk;r }kjk xzke iapk;r lgk;d dh lsokvksa dh vko';drk ugha gksus ij fcuk dkj.k crk;s Hkh mls gVk;k tk ldrk gSA "
6. The selection process had to happen as per the following five conditions mentioned in the aforementioned circular dated 08.11.2016:
"p;au dh izfdz;k &
- xzke iapk;r lgk;dksa dk p;u lacf/kr xzke iapk;r dh xzke lHkk esa fd;k tk;sxkA vkosnd viuk vkosnu ifjf'k"V &2 ij fn;s izk:i ,oa Loizekf.kr nLrkostksa ds lkFk lacf/kr xzke iapk;r dks xzke lHkk ds fnu izkr% 10-30 cts rd lEcaf/kr xzke iapk;r ds xzke lsokd dks izLrqr dj ldsxsaA ,d vH;FkhZ ,d xzke iapk;r esa gh vkosnu dj ldsxkA ,d ls vf/kd LFkku ij vkosnu djuk ik;s tkus ij nksuksa / lHkh LFkkuksa ds vkosnu jj) le>s tk;sxsA
- vkosnd ds mlh iapk;r lfefr dk fuoklh gksus dk izek.k i= Hkh layXu fd;k tkuk vko';d gksxkA (87 of 116) [CW-12299/2017]
- ,d fu/kkZfjr fnol ij leLr jkT; esa ,d lkFk xzke lHkkvksa dks vk;ksftr dj p;u dh izfdz;k iw.kZ dh tk;sxhA p;u gsrq vkosnd dk ml xzke lHkk esa O;fDrxr mifLFkr jguk vfuok;Z gksxk] ftlesa mlus vkosnu fd;k gSA
- lacf/kr fodkl vf/kdkjh }kjk viuh iapk;r lfefr dh leLr xzke iapk;rksa esa vko';d lgk;dksa dh p;u ;ksX; la[;k dk fooj.k ,d lkFk ,d LFkkuh; lekpkj i= esa izdkf'kr djok;k tkk;sxkA blds vfrfjDr xzke iapk;r vius dk;kZy; ds lwpuk iVV ij Hkh p;u gsrq fjfDr;ksa dk ,oa xzke lHkk dh fnukad dk izn'kZu lqfuf'pr djsxhA xzke iapk;r vius LFkkuh; {ks= esa xzke iapk;r lgk;d ds p;u gsrq vk;ksftr dh tk jgh xzke lHkk ckcr O;kid izpkj&izlkj lqfuf'pr djsaxhA
- xzke iapk;r }kjk leLr p;u dh izfdz;k xzke lHkk ds fnu gh iw.kZ dj mlh fnu p;fur vkosndksa ds uke vuqeksnu gsrq lacf/kr eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh] ftyk ifj"kn dks izsf"kr djus gksaxsA ftyk ifj"kn esa vxys dk;Z fnol ij eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh / vfr- eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh] lacf/kr iapk;r lfefr ds fodkl vf/kdkjh rFkk ,d ys[kkf/kdkjh/ lgk;d ys[kkf/kdkjh dh lfefr lacf/kr iapk;r lfefr dh leLr xzke iapk;rksa esa gq, p;u dk vuqeksnu djsaxsA vuqeksnu ds i'pkr lacf/kr xzke iapk;r }kjk vkns'k tkjh fd;s tk ldsaxsA lfefr }kjk vuqeksnu ugha fd;s tkus dh n'kk esa iqu% xzke lHkk vk;skftr dh tkdj u;s uke izLrkfor fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA"
7. The State Government further issued a circular dated 27.01.2017, in which the selection process was further clarified. The State Government further issued directions on 01.02.2017. Thus, the purport of the circulars was that as per the criteria, the concerned School Development and Management Committee (SDMC)/School Management Committee (SMC) was to select the candidates and make recommendation for their appointment, and thereafter, the selection of those candidates was supposed to be (88 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] approved by a District Level Committee comprising of the following:-
"(i) District Education Officer, Primary Education First
- Chairman.
(ii) District Education Officer, Primary Education Second - Member.
(iii)District Education Officer, Secondary Education First - Member.
(iv) Concerned Block Primary Education Officer -
Member Secretary."
8. The last Committee was having the powers to approve the selection process and pave the way for the requisite appointments. Some of the candidates were given appointments in pursuance of the recommendation of the SDMC/SMC; and some of the candidates though recommended, but were yet to be given appointments.
9. In this particular case, the petitioner was given appointment, however, we are hearing all the cases together, and therefore, another category of the candidates, which consists of those, who were finally approved by the aforementioned District Level Committee, is also taken into consideration.
10. Broadly, for all the candidates, the selection process was over and the topmost level Committee i.e. the District Level Committee had already approved the appointments of all the candidates, some of whom were also given appointments. However, the persons, who were deprived of the appointment (89 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] preferred the writ petitions before the Principal Seat as well as the Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court viz., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6023/2017 (Bhoma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. alongwith 121 other analogous matters, decided on 01.06.2017) and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1032/2017 (Sunita Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 24.05.2017), respectively.
11. The directions given by this Hon'ble Court in Bhoma Ram and Sunita Sharma (supra) are common. However, the order passed in the case of Bhoma Ram (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:-
" All the above-mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical.
The prayer in the present writ petitions is to set aside the various orders of appointment as well as the selection list itself dated 19.05.2017 which has been challenged on various grounds including malafide, irregularities and defective procedure followed by the Selection Committee i.e. School Development Committee (SDMC). It was contended that the entire selection was a farce and sham. The identical writ petitions came up for hearing before the learned Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 24.5.2017 on the stand taken by the State Government with the following directions:-
"(a). That the State Government shall issue a circular regarding constitution of the committee (90 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] within one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(b). That from the date of selection of the candidate or within fifteen days from constitution of the committee, whichever is later, any candidate who had participated in the interview, is having grievance and is dissatisfied, may file a representation before the committee.
(c). That the said committee after looking into the record, shall decide the representation by passing a detailed reasoned speaking order.
(d). That copy of the order to be passed upon the representation shall be sent to the candidate through registered post.
(e). That if the candidate who has filed representation, is still aggrieved of the decision, he or she may, within one month from the date of receipt of registered post, take recourse to lawful remedy available to him/her in accordance with provisions of law.
(f). That for putting the candidates to notice who had participated in the selection process, this order and the circular so issued by the State Government shall be uploaded on the official website of the Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department and the Education Department (Elementary)."
It is not disputed that the issue involved is identical.
Today, Mr. P.R. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the (91 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] Circular dated 27.5.2017 vide which the Committee has already been constituted comprising of District Collector, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad and the District Education Officer (Elementary) in terms of the directions issued vide order dated 24.5.2017 of the learned Single Bench. Circular dated 31.05.2017 has also been placed on record vide which it has been decided to dispose of all the representations filed by the petitioners as well as other effected persons within three months from the last cut off date of filing the representation. The last date of the filing the representation shall be the expiry of 15 days from the Circular dated 27.5.2017 vide which the Committee was constituted.
Besides the above, learned counsel for the petitioners state that the merit list has not been disclosed till date and that the criteria and the procedure followed for the selection has also not been disclosed.
It goes without saying that the Committee shall also look into the said objections raised by the petitioners and accordingly deal with the same while deciding the said representations.
In view of the above, all the above-mentioned writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the order dated 24.5.2017 - Sunita Sharma (supra) as well as in view of the Circular dated 27.5.2017 and 31.5.2017.
Mr. Kailash Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioner states that SB Civil Writ Petition No.6323/2017 is different to the extent that the result of the Gram Panchayat Sahayak has not been declared. The said writ petition is also disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned Committee so constituted for the (92 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] purpose during the same stipulated period as observed in CWP No.6023/2017. The Committee shall consider the representation and decide accordingly.
Writ Petitions No.6541/2017, 6555/2017, 6583/2017, 6616/2017, 6619/2017, 6642/2017, 6644/2017, 6671/2017, 6682/2017, 6752/2017 have been filed by the selected candidates who are aggrieved with the fact that no appointment letters have been issued to them.
In view of the writ petition No.6023/2017 - (Bhoma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) & other connected matters having been disposed of in terms of the order dated 24.5.2017 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur in SBCWP NO.1032/2017 (Sunita Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) & Other Connected matters as above, no direction to issue the appointment orders can be passed at this stage. The petitioners who have been selected but no appointment orders have been issued are also at liberty to file their respective representations raising their grievances, if any within the same stipulated period as observed in CWP No.6023/2017. The Committee shall thereafter look into the same and pass appropriate orders on their representations in accordance with law.
All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the above."
12. Thus, the purport of the aforementioned two orders passed by this Hon'ble Court was that in case any person, who did not qualify or did not make it in the selection process, had any genuine grievance, then the same shall be considered by the (93 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] respondents at length.
13. From a bare reading of the aforesaid directions given by this Hon'ble Court, it is abundantly clear that the Hon'ble Court only wanted the Committee to be constituted, and that, the genuine grievances of the aggrieved persons be redressed by the respondents, while passing a speaking order. However, this Hon'ble Court, at no point of time, wanted the earlier exercise to be brushed aside in mass and also did not wish to have a fresh selection process at any stage.
14. This Hon'ble Court while passing the aforementioned orders, only required the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved persons. But, at no point of time, the Hon'ble Court wanted the opportunity of hearing to mean that the same shall not be available to the candidates already selected.
15. It is the basic law that opportunity of hearing cannot be denied to any person, even when he has committed a heinous crime in the eye of law. The rule of law is the cardinal principle of this democratic country, where the constitutional value imbibes, at the threshold, the opportunity of hearing, which is expressed in different terms, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. The Hon'ble Apex Court also, time and again, in various judgments has held that the opportunity of hearing cannot be taken away. Even when the anti national terrorists, some of them in media or the others in person, are said to have committed anti national activities, were permitted complete trial and were given full (94 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] opportunity of hearing before being hanged for the offence so committed.
16. Since the rule of law itself reflects the opportunity of hearing as a prime condition, therefore, it was imperative upon the respondents to have adhered to this basic principle of law. It is extremely unfortunate that when there is a clash between the selected and non-selected candidates, which is always a sensitive issue in the present times, when the employment is crucial, the respondents-authorities have failed to resolve the issue by adhering to the said principle of law.
17. For protecting the valuable right of opportunity of hearing, the earlier orders, as aforementioned, were passed by this Hon'ble Court, but the said orders have been misconstrued by the respondents, and the respondents, while affording the opportunity of hearing to one set of persons, have taken away the same valuable right from the persons, who were equally entitled for opportunity of hearing and were in fact in a more delicate position, as they had already acquired final approval from the District Level Committee for their appointment, which according to the guidelines of the State Government, was a confirmity for the petitioners, who broadly were the persons suitable for being given appointment and before taking away such a valuable right, a very exhaustive right of hearing ought to have been given to them.
18. On noticing the aforementioned anomaly, which is causing grave injustice to the approved/selected candidates, this Hon'ble Court came to their rescue by passing the following (95 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] interim order on 03.10.2017:-
" Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the name of petitioner had been duly recommended by the School Development & Management Committee (SDMC)/School Management Committee (SMC) and forwarded to the respective Zila Parishads for approval. In some of the cases, the concerned Zila Parishads have approved the recommendation and afforded appointment to the petitioner, while in other cases the matters remained pending at the ends of the respondents.
However, without issuing any notice to the concerned candidates, the respondents have dispensed with the petitioner's engagement or terminated his service, while initiating denovo process of selection, pursuant to the circular No.P.15(1)Prashi/2017 dated 15.09.2017 issued by the State Government.
The contention of the petitioner is that by way of initiating denovo process of selection, the respondents have taken away accrued, vested and crystallized rights of the petitioner, for no fault of him.
Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also.
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG, learned Additional Advocate General having entered caveat on behalf of Education Department is directed to accept notices for all the respondents. Mr. Ladrecha, prays for some time to complete his instructions.
Time prayed for is allowed.
List this matter on 09.11.2017.
(96 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] In the meanwhile, the termination of the service of the petitioner, who has been working as Gram Panchayat Shahayak shall remain stayed.
The respondents are further restrained from proceeding in furtherance of the above referred circular dated 15.09.2017 and undertaking exercise of selection of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks for those Gram Panchayats, for which concerned SDMC/SMC have already made recommendations.
The respondents shall however be free to carry out the process for selection for those Gram Panchayats, for which the concerned SDMC/SMC has not sent the recommendations or list of eligible candidates."
19. Thus, this Hon'ble Court, while passing the aforequoted interim order, restrained the respondents from terminating the services or the status acquired by the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks, and meanwhile, also restrained the respondents from proceeding ahead with the circular dated 15.09.2017 for undertaking the fresh exercise of selection of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks, for those Gram Panchayats, for which the concerned SDMC/SMC have already made recommendations.
20. Learned counsels for the petitioners, while arguing the matters, laid the thrust upon the fact that the SDMC/SMC and District Level Committee were higher level Committees comprising of responsible officers of the State Government and their final approval could not be brushed aside in a one sided proceeding.
(97 of 116) [CW-12299/2017]
21. Learned counsels for the petitioners further harped that the opportunity of hearing was imbibed in the rule of law, and to maintain the rule of law, it was the duty of the State to have given at least the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by giving them notice and ascertain the facts, which as per the State, would have rendered the whole selection process meaningless.
22. Learned counsels for the petitioners further pointed out that all the candidates before the Court today as petitioners in all the writ petitions had acquired the final clearance from the SDMC/SMC/District Level Committee and were either appointed or were at the verge of being given appointment.
23. Learned counsels for the petitioners also pointed out that any deprivation at this stage to the persons, who had gone through the complete selection process laid down by the respondents would not only be detrimental to the rule of law, but would also cause serious prejudice to the opportunity of employment, that was secured by the petitioners after finding place in the final approval by the District Level Committee.
24. In support of their submissions, learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.K.Kraipak & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1970 SC 150, relevant para 20 of which reads as under:
"20. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in (98 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it.-The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon there- after a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi- judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is now questioned. If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasijudicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi- judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decison in a quasi-judicial enquiry. As observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala and Ors.(1) the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural (99 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case."
25. Learned counsels for the petitioners also relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in The Government of Mysore & Ors. Vs. J.V. Bhat, etc., reported in AIR 1975 SC 596, relevant paras 6 to 8 of which read as under:-
"6. The Mysore High Court, in the judgment under appeal, seems to have boon of opinion that the principle laid down in Cooper v. The Board of Works for the Wandsworth District (supra) was departed from in King v. The Electricity Commissioners (supra) and by the Privy Council in Nakkuda Ali v. M. F. De S. Jayaratne (supra). The Electricity Commissioners' case was followed by this Court in Province of Bombay v. Khushadas .'V. Advani (supra). The High Court's view seems to have been that this line of reasoning prevented the Court from inferring any procedure apart from that laid down in the statute. It seemed to have been of opinion that only what was laid down in the Constitution is the Constitutional law of the (100 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] land. This is clear from the following passage in the judgment under appeal:
"The principles of natural justice recognised in this country arc largely if not wholly' moulded by the decisions of the English Courts. In this country, as in England, though the principles of natural justice are of utmost importance in the administration of justice they do not form part of the Constitutional law of our country except probably when we consider cases falling under Article 311 of the Constitution. Some of our statutes embody those principles but largely they are the product of judicial decisions. Those principles do not over-ride specific provisions contained in any. statute unless the same comes into conflict with any of the provisions in the Constitution."
7. We may point out that, in holding the impugned provision void for contravention of Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, the High Court itself relied on a principle of natural justice inasmuch as it held that a procedure providing ,or due hearing to the party affected before a building was condemned to be demolished was not provided in the impugned Act. In other words, the High Court itself was treating rules of natural justice as part of requirements of our Constitutional law although they are not specifically conferred upon citizens under a separate heading.
8. We think that the Electricity Commissioners' case (supra) which was followed by this Court in Khushaldas S. Advani's case (supra), was not really a departure from the general principle laid (101 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] down in Cooper v. The Board of Works for the Wandsworth District (supra), but, it was an attempt to formulate the conditions under which the general principle laid down thereby Erle, C.J., who quoted the Biblical story of how even God Himself had given Adam an opportunity of answering why he had eaten the forbidden fruit before, expelling him from Paradises was applicable in the circumstances of an increasingly complex economic and social order whose problems compelled the emergence of the welfare socialistic State with its many organs armed with extensive powers. Courts attempted, in the interests of justice, where its imperative demands were not met, to control administrative action by assimilating it to judicial action over which Courts could exercise supervision. In later cases, emphasis was more on the needs of justice and fairness rather than upon the distinction between the judicial and administrative action. Administrative action had, however, to be given free scope within its legitimate sphere without jeopardizing rights of individuals affected. Policies and schemes framed under statutory provisions, which affected rights of individuals could impose the obligations upon the authorities taking what were essentially administrative decisions at points at which they begin to impinge on specific individual rights. It is only where there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity to be heard, but, on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed itself necessarily implied an obligation to hear before deciding that the "audi alteram partem" rule could be imported. The nature of the hearing (102 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] would, of course, vary according to the nature of the function and what its just and fair exercise required in the context of rights affected."
26. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsels for the petitioners on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Vs. Munnu Barrick & Ors., reported in AIR 2005 SC 1158, relevant paras 17 and 20 of which read as under:
"17. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula. It must be viewed with flexibility. In a given case, where a deviation takes place as regard compliance of the principles of natural justice, the Court may insist upon proof of prejudice before setting aside the order impugned before it. [See Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, ].
20. This Court in Canara Bank (supra) while following Karunakar (supra) held:
"19. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the statute under which the enquiry is held.
(103 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The expression "civil consequences" encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations, and non- pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life."
27. Learned counsels for the petitioners have also placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Nath Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 2375, relevant para 17 of which reads as under:-
"17. How then have the principles of natural justice been interpreted in the Courts and within what limits are they to be confined? Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi-judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of man for fair-play and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all men. The first rule is `nemo judex in causa sua' or `nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua' as stated in (1605) 12 Co.Rep.114 that is, `no man shall be a judge in his own cause'. Coke used the form `aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa quia non potest esse judex at pars' (Co.Litt. 1418), that is, `no man ought to be a judge in his own case, because he cannot act (104 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] as Judge and at the same time be a party'. The form `nemo potest esse simul actor et judex', that is, `no one can be at once suitor and judge' is also at times used. The second rule is `audi alteram partem', that is, `hear the other side'. At times and particularly in continental countries, the form `audietur at altera pars' is used, meaning very much the same thing. A corollary has been deduced from the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule, namely `qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita alteram actquam licet dixerit, haud acquum facerit' that is, `he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what is right' (See Bosewell's case (1605) 6 Co.Rep. 48-b, 52-a) or in other words, as it is now expressed, `justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done'. Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left upon. All that is done is to vacate the order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect, but the proceedings are not terminated."
28. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsels for the petitioners on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. etc. Vs. Union of India etc. etc., reported in AIR 1981 SC 818, relevant paras 42 and 91 of which read as under:-
"42.In short, the general principle-as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application-seems to be that where a statute does not in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post- decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the (105 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing, shown of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative process or frustrate the need or utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fairplay "must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands". The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, to recall the words of Bhagvati, J., the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise.
91. In sum, for all the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that it is not reasonably possible to construe Section 18AA(1) as universally excluding, either expressly or by inevitable intendment, the application of the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice at the pre-takeover stage, regardless of the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In the circumstances of the instant case, in order to ensure fairplay in action it was imperative for the (106 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] Government to comply substantially with this fundamental rule of prior hearing before passing the impugned order. We therefore, accept the two-fold proposition posed and propounded by Shri Nariman."
30. Learned counsels for the petitioners further relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Director, Central State Farm, Suratgarh & Ors. Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner & Ors., reported in 1991(2) WLC (Raj.) 259, relevant paras 9 and 10 of which read as under:-
"9. Our attention has also been drawn to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ramendra Nath v. Mandi Samiti, Sultanpur , wherein it has been observed:
"that the employees of statutory corporations, even in the absence of any Service Rules are entitled to the benefit of principles of natural justice, which would also apply in the case of employees of the Corporation in the matter of termination of services in case their services are terminated though by an innocuous order but by way of punishment without giving them an opportunity of hearing."
It was further held that where the services of the employees of a Mandi Samiti were terminated when there were no service rules in existence by way of punishment in as much as termination was made on the basis of arrest of the employees on the alleged charge of issuing forged passes and on the basis of the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police to terminate their services and no opportunity of hearing was given (107 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] to the employees, such termination of services was held to be illegal being violative of Article 14 and principles of natural justice. In such a case, the relief could not be denied to the employees on the ground that it was a contractual matter and that Samiti was within its right to terminate the services of the employees. It was also held that the employment of the respondent was public employment and the employer could not terminate the services of its employee without due enquiry in accordance with the Statutory Regulations, if any inforce or in the absence of such Regulations, in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Such an enquiry in to the conduct of a public employee is of a quasi judicial character. The respondent was employed by the appellant Corporation in exercise of powers conferred on it by the statute which created it. The appellants power to dismiss the respondent from service was not derived from the Statute. The Court would, therefore, presume the existence of a duty on the part of the dismissing authority to observe the rules of natural justice. The rules of natural justice in the circumstances of the case required that the respondent should be given a reasonable opportunity to deny his guilt, to defend himself and to establish his innocence which means and includes opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses relied upon by the appellant Corporation and an opportunity to lead evidence in defence of the charge as also a show cause notice for the proposed punishment.
10. Section 11(b) of the aforesaid Standing Orders also provides that the employee has to be informed in writing about the alleged misconduct (108 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] and he has to be given a reasonable opportunity to explain the charges levelled against him. Thus, the charges have to be framed and they have to be served on the delinquent and if the employer wanted to terminate the services of the delinquent employee as a measure of penalty even without waiting for the decision of the Criminal Court, the employer should have held an enquiry about his conduct and if it was found that the employee has really indulged in such an affair or is guilty of the aforesaid misconduct then alone his services could have been terminated by his employer. In this case, where employee's services have been terminated only a show cause notice was given to the respondent employee and a reply was obtained from him but when the respondent employee has contested the charges levelled against him, he should have been served with a charge-sheet or at least a statement of allegations. As the petitioner has contested the allegation of distilling the illicit liquor and has stated that in his guard duty, he tried to stop certain persons to cut trees in the farm area, at that moment his blanket and stick were snatched, he should have been afforded an opportunity to support his contention. It would be better if the Department has also examined witnesses in support of the allegations made against the petitioner because no finding of a criminal court has been brought on record whether the petitioner was at all involved in the incident and, therefore, an opportunity of hearing should have been given to him to show that he is not guilty and that has not been done in this case. It appears that the principles of natural justice have (109 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] been violated in this case and, therefore, the learned labour court as also the learned Single Judge were right in holding that such a termination cannot sustain. We are firmly of the opinion that the judgment of the learned single Judge calls for no interference."
31. Learned Additional Advocate General, Shri S.S.Ladrecha, however, strongly refuted the issues raised on behalf of the petitioners and stated that the respondents had made due application of mind before going ahead with the process again for the disputed candidates.
32. Learned Additional Advocate General further pointed out that for every disqualification of the selected candidates, which is there on record as Annexure-6, there was a reason, and such reason was arrived at by going through the representations as well as the documents of the candidates, who had made such complaint/representation.
33. Learned Additional Advocate General also pointed out that the respondents were under a legal obligation to make compliance of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court by taking appropriate decision on the representations of the persons, who could not make it in the selection process concerned. Learned Additional Advocate General further pointed out that no pick and choose policy has been adopted and across the board whatever representations have been received from the candidates, who could not make it in the selection process, were duly considered by the Committee.
(110 of 116) [CW-12299/2017]
34. Learned counsel, Mr.S.D.Goswami has also addressed this Court on behalf of the one of the representatives of the ousted candidates and has pointed out that it was not their fault, on account of which the petitioners have been ousted and their duty was only to put the grievances before the respondents, which they appropriately made, and then the process to be adopted was the look out of the respondents-authorities. It has also been argued that an application for impleadment has also been filed. The said application stands allowed, for the reasons mentioned therein and thus, the complete arguments of Mr.S.D.Goswami, learned counsel regarding the applicant putting the grievances before the respondents-authorities, have been taken note of.
35. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the State had the requirement of the posts of the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks, and therefore, the appropriate amendments were made by incorporating Rule 258 Sub-rule (3) by way of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016. After incorporating the said Sub-rule (3), the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks were to be selected, recommended and appointed, as per the policy laid down by the respondents in various circulars. This policy included screening of the petitioners coupled with the recommendations of the SDMC/SMC, which was finally forwarded to the District Level Committee before the final approval for the appointment was received.
(111 of 116) [CW-12299/2017]
36. Thus, the petitioners, strictly in accordance with the policy laid down by the respondents, have undergone the selection process and have qualified for being finally appointed and many of them have been given appointment, however, in some of the cases, the appointment is only waiting for the orders to be issued in that regard. Thus, all the candidates have completely gone through the selection process and are entitled for being appointed as Gram Panchayat Sahayaks.
37. This Court has carefully gone through the earlier orders, as aforementioned, passed by this Hon'ble Court in the matters of Bhoma Ram and Sunita Sharma (supra), and this Hon'ble Court while issuing directions to the respondents had only kept in mind that the appropriate opportunity of hearing had to be given to the persons, who were left out and nothing more. For making such opportunity of hearing fruitful and for making the process of redressal of the grievances confidence-worthy, this Hon'ble Court directed the constitution of a Committee, and thereafter, disposal of the representations by a detailed speaking order before communication of the same to the candidate concerned.
38. The respondents, without due application of mind, have passed a mechanical order on consideration of the representations, by passing the fresh circular dated 15.09.2017, whereby fresh selection process has been introduced wherever the appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks was disputed by the persons making such representations.
(112 of 116) [CW-12299/2017]
39. The respondents-authorities rather than acting as Grievance Redressal Cell, as per the earlier orders of this Hon'ble Court, have opened a new Pandora Box and have acted in a very unusual manner by ousting or depriving the selected/appointed candidates of their rights without giving them any opportunity of hearing. It can be clearly seen that the right, which was to be protected by the respondents, on the direction of the Hon'ble Court, has in fact more deeply been infringed by the respondents, as while hearing the grievances again, the respondents have trampled over the feet of the persons duly selected/appointed. It is a mockery of justice that the candidates, whose appointments have been approved by the District Level Committee, have been deprived of their valuable right to get appointment, that too, in a one sided proceeding, without giving them any opportunity of hearing, while only relying upon the complaints/representations being made by the ousted persons, who could not make it in the selection process.
40. The respondents owed a serious duty to have maintained the balance between the two sets of candidates, whereas it looks that the respondents are perpetuating the miseries of unemployed youth by putting them into the litigation again and again and forcing them to take recourse of the Hon'ble Court, and thus, the respondents are not making their own sincere efforts to redress the grievances of the aggrieved persons.
41. The doctrine of audi alteram partem is a cardinal principle of the rule of law, and as has been previously noticed by (113 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] this Court, the same has been imbibed deep into the roots of the rights available to the citizens of this country. The respondents have miserably failed to create redressal out of the mechanism provided by this Hon'ble Court on the earlier occasion, and have rather created the chaos amongst the unemployed youth by pitting them against each other, as both the sets of appointed/selected versus ousted candidates have made their own camping grounds and in fact contesting each other by their precious youthful energies. This Court deprecates the said practice of non-application of mind adopted by the respondents/authorities.
42. This Court takes note of the fact that all the impugned orders, including the fresh circular dated 15.09.2017 and the termination orders, which have been passed, are not only cryptic and one sided, but also amount to travesty of justice for the persons, who have already been selected/appointed. The termination order clearly reflects only one sided consideration, whereby the persons, who were not approved/selected gave representations, and their verbatim version has been reproduced in the termination order, without any application of mind or without going into the fact that the petitioners themselves have a valuable right to rebut the facts mentioned in such representation.
43. The respondents have initiated the process for rest of the Gram Panchayats, where the dispute arose out of the decisions taken by the SDMC/SMC and District Level Committee and have passed the circular dated 15.09.2017. Thus, the (114 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] irresponsible conclusion has been made by the respondents- authorities regarding the disputes in respect of approval/appointment, by holding the approvals for selection/appointment bad, even without giving the minimum required opportunity of hearing or any kind of notice to the petitioners. The petitioners, if at all, had committed any wrong, then also, they should have been given at least one proper opportunity of hearing, to rebut the facts mentioned in the representation of the ousted candidates, so as to defend their appointment/selection.
44. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as the precedent laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to give the petitioners proper opportunity of hearing by calling them or taking their representations regarding the issues, which are required to be considered on the complaint/representation received from the ousted candidates. The reasons for ouster are to be specifically communicated to the petitioners so that they could represent and rebut such reasons of ouster by bringing on record their own defence. The Committee has already been constituted in pursuance of the orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in the matters of Sunita Sharma and Bhoma Ram (supra), and therefore, no fresh Committee needs to be constituted. The respondents shall be required to communicate the reasons for the proposed ouster of the petitioners, and on such communication, a proper opportunity of hearing shall be (115 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] given to the petitioners to defend their appointment/selection. After such exercise is completed, the respondents shall be free to take fresh stand in respect of the appointments based on merit, the reasons for ouster and the defence submitted by the petitioners. After such opportunity of hearing is completed with proper application of mind by the concerned authorities, then the valuable right of appointment/selection shall be appropriately reconsidered by the respondents, if so required. Until such exercise is completed, the de novo process of selection pursuant to the aforementioned dated 15.09.2017 would not operate only for the Gram Panchayats, where the selection has been finally approved by the District Level Committee. It is made clear that the respondents shall meanwhile maintain the status quo in respect of the services of the petitioners. It is also made clear that all the impugned termination orders stand quashed and the respondents shall be required to pass fresh orders after the proper opportunity of hearing is given to the persons, so selected. Since the persons ousted have already been given opportunity of hearing and their representation, in light of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in Bhoma Ram and Sunita Sharma (supra), therefore, all those shall be kept into consideration. However, since the right has already accrued in favour of the petitioners for being selected/appointed, therefore, the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners shall be duly granted by the Committee concerned, before passing fresh orders, strictly in accordance with law. Since the right of opportunity of hearing should be granted (116 of 116) [CW-12299/2017] only to the vigilant citizens, therefore, this order shall operate qua the present petitioners only. It is needless to say that the petitioners shall cooperate by all means in the process of opportunity of hearing to be stipulated by the respondents in a time bound manner.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-