Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bodu Ram vs State Of Raj And Ors on 12 May, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
(1). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2231 / 2017
Bodu Ram S/o Goma Ram Bijarnia,, Aged About 26 Years, Village
Bhordo Ka Bas, Post Mei, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
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 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad,, Sikar.
6. The District Education Officer (Primary),, Sikar
----Respondents
Connected With (2). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 891 / 2017 Phool Chand Kumawat S/o Shri Ramlal Kumawat, Aged About 36 Years, Village Chandthali, Post Bajata, Tehsil Sawar, Distt. Ajmer
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk
5. District Education Officer, Elementary Education,, Tonk
6. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Deoli, Distt. Tonk
----Respondents (2 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] (3). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1029 / 2017 Lokesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mahavir Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, Village Chhawani Borda, Tehsil & Distt. Bundi (Raj.)
2. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramswarup Sharma, Village Kharibaran, Panchayat Samiti Taleda, Distt. Bundi (Raj.)
3. Kanhaiyalal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Kalyan Sharma,, Folai, Panchayat Samiti, Keshoraipatan, Distt. Bundi (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat,, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Elementary Education,, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. Chief Executive Officer,, Zila Parishad, Bundi
5. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bundi
6. Block Elementary Education Officer,, Panchayat Samiti, Bundi.
7. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Keshoraipatan, Distt. Bundi
----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1030 / 2017 Mohan Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Ramdev Kumawat, Aged About 34 Years, Bisalpur Colony (Mahuwa), Post Bharni, Tehsil & Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk (3 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
5. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Tonk
6. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Tonk
----Respondents (5) S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1814 / 2017
1. Manish Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Girraj Prasad, by Caste Vaishya,, Aged About 37 Years, Punjabi Mohallah, Pahadi, District Bharatpur.
2. Siya Ram S/o. Shri Raghuveer Singh,by Caste Lodha,, Aged About 34 Years, Pahadi, District Bharatpur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education,, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer (elementary Education), Bharatpur.
4. The Chief Executive Officer,, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur.
----Respondents (6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2274 / 2017 Sitaram Dayma And Ors
----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent (7). S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2298 / 2017
1. Mamchand Sharma Son of Shri Nemi Chand Sharma, by Caste Khati,, Aged About 34 Years, Village Bidarka, Post Badhoda, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (raj.)
2. Aladin Son of Shri Akbar Khan,, Village Ratakalan, Post Ratakhurd, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (raj.)
3. Chatru Khan Son of Shri Fajru Khan,, Village Chorbasai, Post Khanpur Mewan, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (raj.) (4 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
4. Hemlata Saini Wife of Shri Harish Kumar,, Village Pattipahadi, Post Bahadurpur, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (raj.)
5. Harish Kumar Son of Shri Gangasahay Saini,, Village Pattipahadi, Post Bahadurpur, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (raj.)
6. Amardin Son of Shri Bhabbad Khan,, Village & Post Ghansoli, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (raj.)
7. Tahir Khan Son of Shri Kamal Khan,, Village Ranikheda, Post Bhajeda, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (raj.)
8. Shakuntala Wife of Shri Rohitash,, Village Nangla Samavadhi, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (raj.)
9. Taiyyab Son of Shri Sufed Khan,, Village Ghatika Bas Baghoda, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development & Panchaiati Raj Department,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Education School,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents (8). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2304 / 2017
1. Puranmal Sharma Son of Shri Nawal Kishore Sharma, by Caste Brahmin,, Aged About 33 Years, Dhani Gagoriyan Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Babu Lal Sharma Son of Shri Goverdhan Lal Sharma, by Caste Brahmin,, Dhani Gagoriyan Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Naccharam Sharma Son of Shri Boduram Sharma, by Caste Brahmin,, Dhani Gagoriyan Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.) (5 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
4. Sitaram Sharma Son of Shri Nawal Kishore Sharma, by Caste Brahmin,, Dhani Gagoriyan Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Mohan Lal Sharma Son of Shri Kalyan Sahay Sharma, by Caste Brahmin,, Dhani Gagoriyan Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Vasu Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Goverdhan Lal Sharma, by Caste Brahmin,, Dhani Gagoriyan Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Mukesh Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Kalyan Sahay Sharma, by Caste Brahmin,, Dhani Gagoriyan Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
8. Mukesh Kumar Jat Son of Shri Chauthmal Jat, by Caste Jat,, Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
9. Mamta Kumari Jat Daughter of Shri Suni Lal Jat, by Caste Jat,, Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
10. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Ramchandra Sharma, by Caste Brahmin,, Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
11. Mahendra Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma, by Caste Brahmin, Chithwadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Ra.)
12. Hanuman Sahay Jat Son of Shri Gullaram Jat, by Caste Jat,, Ishwarwala, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
13. Mohan Lal Jat Son of Shri Raghunath Jat, by Caste Jat,, Ishwarwala, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
14. Mahendra Kumar Jat Son of Shri Kalyan Sahay Jat, by Caste Jat,, Ishwarwala, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
15. Shaitan Singh Sodh Son of Shri Narayan Lal Sodh, by Caste Sodh,, Ishwarwala, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
16. Shankar Lal Kumhar Son of Shri Kalyan Sahay Kumhar, by Caste Kumhar,, Ishwarwala, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
17. Rajendra Jangid Son of Shri Mohan Lal Jangid by Caste Jangid,, Ishwarwala, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
18. Ramavtar Bunkar Son of Shri Arjun Lal Bunkar, by Caste Bunkar,, Kalighati Bilonchi, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
19. Krishna Kumari Daughter of Shri Bhoop Singh,, Ghatwada, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.) (6 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
20. Smt. Vinod Kumari Negi Daughter of Shri Mahadev Prasad,, Bilonchi, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
21. Mukesh Kumar Saini Son of Shri Chhitarmal Saini, by Caste Saini,, Motija, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
22. Balram Sharma Son of Shri Badri Prasad Sharma, by Caste Sharma,, Kalipahari Charanwas, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.)
23. Manoj Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Badri Prasad Sharma, by Caste Sharma,, Kalipahari Charanwas, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchyati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary Department of Education School,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchyati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchyat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur
----Respondents (9). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2305 / 2017
1. Rakesh Chaudhary S/o Shri Girdhari Lal, Aged About 32 Years, Near Virat Public Sr. Secondary School, New Colony, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Jhabarmal Yadav S/o Shri Mool Chand Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, Dhani Dhadiyan Village & Post Raipur Jagir, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
3. Umrav Prasad Jat S/o Shri Ghisa Lal Jat, Aged About 37 Years, Villge Neejhar, Post Chhapura Kalan, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, Dhani Rabaro Ki, Village - Rajpura, Jagir, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
(7 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
5. Jaiprakash Kumhar S/o Ganapat Lal, Aged About 29 Years, Village & Post Chhapura Kalan, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
6. Mohan Lal Yadav S/o Shri Jaman Lal Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, Dhani Dhadiyan Village & Post Raipur Jagir, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
7. Om Prakash Jat S/o Shri Nathooram Jat, Aged About 37 Years, Village Govinpura Dhabai, Post - Chhapura Kalan, Via Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
8. Ganesh Ram Swami S/o Shri Ramkuwar Swami, Aged About 36 Years, Village & Post Kishorpura Via Ajeetgarh, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
9. Om Prakash Takshak S/o Shri Bhoora Ram Jat, Aged About 39 Years, Village Khatkar, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
10. Shri Kishan Jat S/o Shri Nathu Ram Jat, Aged About 29 Years, Village Govindpura, Post Chhapura Kalan, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Director (Secondary), Department of Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner
4. The Director (Elementary), Department of Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner
5. Chairman School Development Management Committee, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Chhabra Khurd, Panchayat Samiti Viratnagar, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents (10). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2307 / 2017
1. Dinesh Kumar Mali S/o Shri Mangi Lal Mali,, Aged About 43 Years, Village Post Durgpura, Tehsil Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan
2. Heera Lal Nagar S/o Gajanand Nagar,, Aged About 46 Years, Village Post Mundala, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar (8 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
3. Kalu Ram Kumhar S/o Shri Chunni Lal Kumhar,, Aged About 36 Years, Village Post Titarwala, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar
4. Omprakash S/o Shri Sundar Lal Gurjar,, Aged About 46 Years, Village Post Darrah, Tehsil Sagod, District Kota
5. Sita Kumari W/o Dinesh Kumar Mali,, Aged About 38 Years, Village Post Durgapura, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar
6. Nirmal Kumar Jain S/o Shri Daulat Chand Jain, Aged About 378 Years,, Village Sans, Post Kacholiya, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk
7. Kishan Gopal Gour S/o Bhawani Shankar, Chhbra, District Baran
8. Rupesh Kumar Soni S/o Jagdish Prasad Soni,, Chhabra, District Baran
9. Balwant Singh S/o Gurudayal,, Aged About 40 Years, 18GG, Govindpura, Tehsil and District Ganganagar
10. Arvind Kumar S/o Sitaram, B/c Mehra,, Netewala, Tehsil & District Ganganagar.
11. Gyani Ram S/o Shri Dungar Ram, B/c Meghwal,, Aged About 40 Years, Village Odawali, Tehsil Sadulsahar, District Ganganagar
12. Dharamveer S/o Ranjeet Ram, B/c Jat,, Aged About 42 Years, 16-17 SDS, Tehsil Sadulsahar, District Shriganganagar
13. Rita W/o Sandeep Kumhar, B/c Kumhar, Aged About 35 Years, ILNT, Khayaliwala, District Ganganagar
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary Department of Education School, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur
4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development & Pancchayati Raj Department, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur
----Respondents (9 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] (11). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2323 / 2017 Sita Ram Gurjar, S/o Shri Ganga Sahai Gurjar,, Aged About 40 Years, Village Ramsar, Post Bhudla, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Education Department,, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department Government,, Jaipur.
3. Director, Secondary Education,, Bikaner.
4. Director, Elementary Education., Bikaner.
----Respondents (12). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2360 / 2017
1. Vikas Kumar Son of Shri Sumer Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Village and Post, Bas Bishna, Tehsil Bhatiwar, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu
2. Subhash Gangwal Son of Sh. Dharamprakash, Aged About 21 Years, Village Post Chakwara Tehsil Phagi Distt. Jaipur
3. Sitaram Raigar Son of Sh. Puran Raiger, Aged About 35 Years, Village Badh Baghpura Distt. Jaipur
4. Bhupendra Gautam Son of Ghanshyam Verma, Aged About 28 Years, Tehesil Chaksu Distt. Jaipur
5. Amar Chand Sabal Son of Nanu Ram Sabal, Aged About 24 Years, Village Post Hasteda Tehsil Chomu Distt. Jaipu
6. Virendra Sabal Son of Ishwar Lal Sabal, Aged About 19 Years, Village Post Hasteda Tehsil Chomu Distt. Jaipur
7. Manoj Kumar Sabal Son of Ramlal Sabal, Aged About 22 Years, Village Post Hasteda Tehsil Chomu Distt. Jaipur
8. Rahul Kumar Sabal Son of Premchand Sabal, Aged About 24 Years, Village Post Hasteda Tehsil Chomu Distt. Jaipur
9. Devendra Kumar Sabal Son of Goverdhan Lal Raigar, Aged About 21 Years, Village Post Hasteda Tehsil Chomu Distt. Jaipur
10. Suresh Kumar Sabal Son of Radhe Shyam Sabal, Aged About 24 Years, Village Post Hasteda Tehsil Chomu Distt. Jaipur (10 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
11. Dr. Ambedkar Memorial Welfare Society Through Its General Secretary Sh, Anil Kumar Gothwal Son of Late Sh. Ramswaroop, 13-14 Institutional Area Jaipur
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur Near Collectorate Circle, Bani Park, Jaipur
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jhunjhunu
----Respondents (13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2601 / 2017 Shri Lal Sharma Son of Kailash Chand Sharma, by Caste Brahmin,, Aged About 41 Years, Village Chimanpura, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar (raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary Department of Education School,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents (11 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] (14). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2831 / 2017 Prem Singh Son of Kishan Lal, by Caste Jat, Aged About 23 Years, Village Jindoli, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar
4. District Education Officer, (Elementary), Alwar
5. Block Elementary Education Officer, Mundawar, District Alwar
6. The Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Jindoli, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar
7. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jindoli, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar
8. Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jindoli, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar
----Respondents (15). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2875 / 2017 Vinesh S/o Shri Manso, by Caste Lodha,, Aged About 22 Years, Village & Post Songaon, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Elementary Education,, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),, Bharatpur
4. The Chief Executive Officer,, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur
----Respondents (12 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] (16). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3202 / 2017 Bhagirath Mal Gurjar S/o Shri Banwari Lal Gurjar,, Aged About 30 Years, Village - Raypur Mod Dokan, Tehsil - Neem Ka Than, Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Director (Secondary), Department of Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,, Bikaner
4. The Director (Elementary), Department of Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,, Bikaner
5. Headmaster, Govt. Secondary School,, Dokan, Panchyat Samiti Patan, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondents (17). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3325 / 2017 Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Sitaram Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, Village Bobari, Post Ghatwari, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur- 303120
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department of Rural and Panchayati Raj, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Department of Education Through Principal Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Department of Rural and Panchayati Raj, Through Secretary and Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur
4. Secretary, School Development Management Committee, GSS Kanwarpura, Amer, Jaipur
----Respondents (13 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] (18). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3399 / 2017 Deshraj Gurjar Son of Shri Uddharam Gurjar, by Caste Gurjar,, Aged About 27 Years, Vilalge Kishorepura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchyati Raj Department, Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary Department of Education School,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchyati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development & Panchyati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents (19). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3527 / 2017 Smt. Shalini Jain Wife of Shri Deepak Jain,, Aged About 41 Years, Sindhari, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Govt. of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad,, Barmer.
4. District Education Officer (Elementary) Panchayat Samiti,, Barmer.
5. Block Elementary Education Officer,, Sindhari, District Barmer.
6. The Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School,, Sindhari, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer.
----Respondents (14 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] (20). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3563 / 2017 Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Kishan Lal, by Caste Balai,, Aged About 25 Years, Village Beswa, Panchayat Samiti and Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Cum Chief Secretary Rural Development and Panchayti Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Rajasthan,, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Officiating Elementary Education Officer Principal Seth Shri Laduram Ramdev Dudhia Goernment Senior Secondary School,, Village Baswa, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar
----Respondents (21). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3616 / 2017
1. Rekha Yadav W/o Sunil Kumar, by Caste Ahir,, Aged About 37 Years, Village & Post Budhi Bawal, Tehasil Kotkasim, District Alwar
2. Sanju W/o Sh. Vinit Kumar, by Caste Ahir,, Aged About 28 Years, Village & Post Budhi Bawal, Tehasil Kotkasim, District Alwar
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, School Education, Government of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Grameen Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur, Through Its Commissioner
3. Zila Parishad, Alwar Through Its Chief Executive Officer
4. Panchayat Elementary Eduation Officer, Gram Panchayat Budhi Bawal, District Alwar Through District Education Officer (Secondary), Alwar
5. Arun Kumar S/o Not Known,, Village Kokhawas, Tehasil Kotkasim, District Alwar
6. Smt Pushpa Bai W/o Roshan,, Village & Post Budhi Bawal, Tehasil Kotkasim, District Alwar
----Respondents (15 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] (22). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3626 / 2017
1. Girdharilal Raigar S/o Shri Bhuraram Raiger,, Aged About 40 Years, Mukam Post - Budasu, V.I.A. - Makrana, Dist - Nagaur, Raj
2. Jeevanram Raiger S/o Shri Kishanlal,, Aged About 28 Years, Billu, Tehsile - Makrana, Dist - Nagaur, Raj.
3. Gopiram S/o Shri Rooparm,, Aged About 34 Years, Village - Itawa Lakha, V.I.A. - Gachipura, Tehsile - Makrana, Dist - Nagaur, Raj.
4. Ghansyam S/o Shri Kaluram Ganwaria,, Aged About 31 Years, Village - Post - Basroi, Tehsile - Makrana, Dist - Nagaur, Raj.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director Cum Commissioner Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Scetriate, Jaipur, Raj
3. The Director Elementary Education,, Bikaner, Raj.
4. District Education (Elementary Education) Officer,, Nagaur (Raj.)
5. The Member Secretary School Management & Development Committee, Government Senior Secondary School,, Basroli, Panchayat Samiti Makran, Nagaur
6. The Member Secretary School Management & Development Committee, Government Adarsh Secodnary School,, Itawa Kala, Makrana Nagaur
7. The Member Secretary School Management & Development Committee, Government Adarsh Senior Secodnary School,, Budsu. Makrana Nagaur
8. The Member Secretary School Management & Development Committee, Govt. Adarsh Secondary School,, Itawa Kala, Makrana Nagaur
----Respondents (16 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] (23). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3800 / 2017 Vimlesh Sharma W/o Shri Ramavtar Sharma,, Aged About 35 Years, Sanjay Market, Behind Post Office, Malpura, District Tonk, Raj.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through, Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj,, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), District Tonk
3. Paden, Panchayat Primary Education Officer,, Chandsen, Tehsil Malupura, Distt. Tonk.
----Respondents (24). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3844 / 2017
1. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rajji Lal Sharma, by Caste Bhramin,, Aged About 40 Years, Ladpura, Post Bairada, Tehsil - Bamanwas, District - Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
2. Ramsingh Gurjar S/o Shri Peerau Lal Gurjar, by Caste Gurjar,, Aged About 48 Years, Piplai, Post Piplai, Tehsil - Bamanwas District
- Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
3. Sarya Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Moti Lal Sharma, by Caste Bhramin,, Aged About 42 Years, Piplai, Post Piplai, Tehsil - Bamanwas District - Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
4. Rajkumar Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, by Caste Mali,, Aged About 42 Years, Bhanwargi, Post Bhanwargi, Tehsil - Bamanwas District - Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
5. Kamod Kumar Mali S/o Shri Jouhri Lal Mali, by Caste Mali,, Aged About 39 Years, Amavra, Post Amavra, Tehsil - Bamanwas District - Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
6. Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Parsadi Lal Jain, by Caste Jain,, Aged About 48 Years, Nimod, Post Karel, Tehsil- Bouli, District- Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
7. Indramal Bairwa S/o Shri Sohan Lal Bairwa, by Caste Bairwa, Aged About 51 Years, Bhaanwra, Post Bhaanwra, Tehsil- Bamanwas, District - Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
8. Samayram Gurjar S/o Shri Surajya Gurjar, by Caste Gurjar,, Sitod Ki Dhori Jhopdi, Tehsil- Bamanwas, District - Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (17 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
9. Mitlesh Kuamr Sharma S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma, by Caste Bhramin, Aged About 36 Years, Village- Kiratpura, Post- Raghopura, Tehsil- Bamanwas, District - Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
10. Asharam Meena S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Meena, by Caste Meena,, Aged About 40 Years, Gram Mandir Neeva, Post- Jeewad, Tehsil- Bamanwas, District - Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
11. Pushplata Gurjar D/o Late Shri Mool Chand W/o Vishwnath Pratap Singh, by Caste Gurjar,, Aged About 30 Years, Badsohan, Post- Phool Wanda, Tehsil- Bamanwas, District- Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
12. Kamlesh Meena S/o Shri ShoyJi Ram Meena, by Caste Meena,, Aged About 42 Years, Bamanwas Khurd, Tehsil- Bamanwas, District- Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
13. Pushpa Sharma D/o Shri Ambrish Kumar Sharma W/o Shri Santosh Kumar Parashar, by Caste Brahmin,, Aged About 39 Years, Village & Post Bichoch, Tehsil- Bamanwas, District- Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
14. Ram Singh S/o Shri Kailash Chand Meena, by Caste Meena,, Aged About 42 Years, Village Kiratpura, Post Raghopura, Tehsil- Bamanwas, District- Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
15. Ram Kuwar Meena S/o Shri Badri Lal Meena, by Caste Meena,, Aged About 40 Years, Gram Mandir Meena, Post Jiwad, Tehsil- Bamanwas, District- Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
16. Mahendra Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Parshadi Lal Gurjar, by Caste Gurjar, Aged About 36 Years, Gram Bidarkha, Post Baadkala, Tehsil-Gangapur City, District -Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Commissioner/Director, Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner
3. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sawai Madhopur. Distt. Sawai Madhopur. (Raj)
4. Block Elementary Education Officer (B.E.E.O), Bamanwas, Distt. Sawai Madhopur. (Raj)
----Respondents (18 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] (25). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3845 / 2017
1. Balbir S/o Arjun Ram,, Aged About 37 Years, Balonda, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2. Shradha Sharma D/o Gurudayal Sharma,, Aged About 34 Years, Bhaloth, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
3. Chet Ram Somra S/o Ram Singh Somra,, Aged About 33 Years, Village Moi Bharu, Post Moi Purani, Via Sindhana, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
4. Manju Dhaka D/o Goru Ram Dhaka,, Aged About 39 Years, Village & Post Barsari Ka Bas, Tehsil Surajgarh, Via Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
5. Sarita D/o Rawat Ram,, Aged About 33 Years, Village Silarpuri, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
6. Krishan Bihari Lal Saini S/o Dhokal Singh,, Aged About 37 Years, Chanwara, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
7. Ashok Kumar S/o Balu Ram,, Aged About 37 Years, Vijarniya Ki Dhani (Gudha Bawni), Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
8. Anil Kumar S/o Ramanand Sharma,, Aged About 31 Years, Shimla, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
9. Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o Bishamber Dayal Yadav,, Aged About 38 Years, Shimla, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
10. Amit Kumar Kaushik S/o Santosh Kumar Kaushik,, Aged About 32 Years, Buhana, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----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 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu
6. The District Education Officer (Primary),, Jhunjhunu
7. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, (19 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] Government Sr. Sec. School,, Balonda Panchayat Samiti Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu
8. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh Sr. Sec. School,, Bhalodh, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, District Jhunjhunu
9. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh Secondary School,, Ghunti, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, District Jhunjhunu
10. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Sr. Sec. Adarsh School,, Badsri Ka Bas, Panchayat Samiti, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu
11. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh Sr. Sec. School, Raipur,, Dhardana, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, District Jhunjhunu
12. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Sr. Sec. School, Paunkh, District Jhunjhunu.
13. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Sahid Ramsingh Shekhawat Adarsh Sr. Sec. School, Chanwara, Panchayat Samiti, Udaipurwati, District District Jhunjhunu
14. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Sr. Sec. School, Gudha Bawani, Panchayat Samiti, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu.
15. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gori Sahay Ramjilal Government Sr. Sec. School, Thathwadi, Panchayat Samiti, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.
16. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gori Sahay RamjiLal Government Sr. Sec. School,, Thathwari, Panchayat Samiti, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.
17. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh Sr. Sec. School, Buhana, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents (26). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4304 / 2017 Lajya Ram S/o Shri Dharme Ram Gurjar,, Aged About 44 Years, Village Peepal Khedla Post Tali P.S. Karauli District Karauli.
----Petitioner Versus (20 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department,, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education School,, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Addl. Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, State of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Bhawan,, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Principal, Gram Panchayat, Khuda District Karauli.
----Respondents (27). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4312 / 2017 Lalita Sharma D/o Kedar Mal Sharma, W/o Mukesh Kumar Vaishnav,, Aged About 31 Years, Village Dhareda, Village & Post Kukar, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner 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 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad,, Bikaner
5. The District Primary Education Officer,, Tonk.
6. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Sr. Sec. School,, Kukad, Panchayat Samiti, Todaraisingh, District Tonk.
----Respondents (28). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4693 / 2017
1. Deependra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Sitaram Yadav,, Aged About 38 Years, Ward No. 7, Village Mangarh, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar
2. Gowardhan Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Maliram Yadav,, Aged About 31 Years, Village Mandusya Village Panchayat Hathora Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar (21 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
3. Harishankar Yadav S/o Shri Prabhati Lal Yadav,, Aged About 42 Years, Village Diwrala Village Panchayat Diwrala Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department,, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education School,, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Addl. Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, State of Rajasthan, Panchayati Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur
4. The Assistant Engineer Cum P.I.A. Watershed Development and Land Conservator Panchayat Samiti, Srimadhopur District Sikar
----Respondents (29). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6841 / 2017
1. Kuldeep Sharma S/o Shri Ram Naryan Sharma,, Aged About 40 Years, Village Jugalpura Post Kanwat Tehsil Khandela District Sikar Rajasthan.
2. Suresh Chand Yadav S/o Basanta Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Village Khiwala, Post Hasanpur Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar Rajasthan
3. Suwalal Meena S/o Shri Chunnilal Meena,, Village Hasanpur, Dhani Lakhaji, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar Rajasthan.
4. Ku. Sanjay Bala W/o Shri Krishan Kumar Bala,, Village Bakshipura, P:ost Hasanpur, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
5. Abdul Wahid S/o Shri Sher Mohammad Khan,, Village Post Hasanpur, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
6. Jai Narayan S/o Shri Rugha Ram,, Village Bopiya Post Chhajkanogar, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj), Government of Rajasthan,, Govt. Secretariat, (22 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan,, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director Elementary Education, Bikaner
4. District Collector,, Sikar
5. Chief Executive Officer,, Zila Parishad, Sikar
6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education,, Sikar
----Respondents (30). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6896 / 2017 Mahendra Singh Taroliya Son of Shri Sukhram, by Caste Jatav,, Aged About 36 Years, Village & Post Bahtukalan, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchyati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary Department of Education School,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchyati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development & Panchyati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents (31). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6897 / 2017 Harimohan Bairwa Son of Shri Ramdayal Bairwa, by Caste Bairwa, Aged About 32 Years, Village & Post Barnawada, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchyati Raj Department,, Secretariat, Jaipur (23 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
2. Principal Secretary Department of Education School,, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchyati Raj Department, State of Rajasthan,, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur
4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development & Panchyati Raj Department, State of Rajasthan,, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur
5. The Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School Barnawada,, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Respondents (32). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6898 / 2017
1. Rajmal Meena Son of Shri Mool Chand Meena, by Caste Meena,, Aged About 42 Years, Village Rampuriya, Village Panchayat Kanotiya, Post Sakatpur, Tehsil Atru, District Baran (Raj.)
2. Tolaram Meghwal Son of Shri Heera Lal Meghwal, by Caste Meghwal,, Aged About 44 Years, Village & Post Patna, Tehsil Atru, District Baran (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchyati Raj Department,, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary Department of Education School,, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchyati Raj Department, State of Rajasthan,, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur
4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development & Panchyati Raj Department, State of Rajasthan,, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur
----Respondents (33). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6899 / 2017
1. Satya Narayan Son of Shri Asuram Meghwal, by Caste Meghwal,, Village & Post Bandhnau, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu (Raj.).
2. Nirmal Kumar Jain Son of Shri Daulat Chand Jain,, Village Saans, Panchayat Kacholiya, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.).
(24 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
3. Kalawati Suman Wife Shri Ramkishan Mali,, Village Ward No. 15, Purani Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.).
4. Ramavtar Sharma Son of Shri Ramkumar Sharma,, Ward No. 16, Baran Gaon Mohalla, Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.).
5. Bhavta Lal Gurjar Son of Shri Magu Lal Gurjar,, Village Panchayat Kurad, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.).
6. Sajjan Lal Verma Son of Shri Ram Lal Raigar,, Ward No. 14, Raigar Ka Bada Nagar School, Road No. 5, Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.).
7. Ramraj Gurjar Son of Shri Ramchandra Gurjar,, Village Devaliya Patti Gujran, Panchayat Pilaju, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.).
8. Puran Mal Verma Son of Shri Balu Mal Verma,, Village Panchayat Tordi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.).
9. Monika Khati Wife of Shri Ratan Lal Khati,, Village Panchayat Kacholiya, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
10. Durga Pratap Singh Son of Shri Jagdish Singh,, Village Panchayat Kadila, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.).
11. Mamta Kumari Meena Daughter of Shri Chhitar Mal Meena,, Village Panchayat Kadela, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
12. Mohan Lal Choudhary Son of Shri Ghasi Lal Choudhary,, Village Panchayat Sabrana, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
13. Sushila Sahu Wife of Shri Mukesh Kumar Sahu,, Village Panchayat Tordi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
14. Sitaram Gurjar Son of Shri Ramkaran Gurjar,, Village Panchayat Indoli, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
15. Geeta Choudhary Son of Shri Rajendra Palsaniya,, Village Panchayat Aavda, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
16. Antima Bareth Daughter of Shri Radheyshyam Bareth,, Village Panchayat Dungri Kalan, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
17. Ramniwas Son of Shri Ghasi Lal Bairwa,, Village Indola, Gram Panchayat Indoli, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
18. Ritu Jain Wife of Shri Arun Kumar Jain,, Brijlal Nagar, Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
19. Sunita Jain Wife of Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain, Village Ghanwar, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.) (25 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
20. Shivraj Jat Son of Shri Laduram,, Village Kishanpura, Panchayat Jadli, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
21. Rameshi Devi Jat Daughter of Shri Jagdish Jat,, Village Chochla (Chainpura), Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
22. Ramar Lal Son of Shri Kalyan Mal,, Village & Post Jarana, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk (Raj.)
23. Jagdish Son of Shri Hardevaram Upadhyay,, Village & Post Sawai Badi, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu (Raj.)
24. Dhanpatram Meghwal Son of Shri Megha Ram Meghwal,, Village & Post Bikampura, Tehsil Shahar Shahar, District Churu (Raj.)
25. Suresh Kumar Son of Shri Sultan Singh,, Village Rewasi, Post Nethwa, Tehsil Tara Nagar, District Churu (Raj.)
26. Kamla Prajapat Daughter of Shri Pitram,, Village & Post Sarayav, Tehsil Tara Nagar, District Churu (Raj.)
27. Ramswaroop Son of Shri Laxmanram,, Village & Post Nethwa, Tehsil Tara Nagar, District Churu (Raj.)
28. Vandana Daughter of Shri Hukmi Chand Dhaka,, Village & Post Bhinan, Tehsil Tara Nagar, District Churu (Raj.)
29. Uma Shankar Khangar Son of Shri Prabhu Lal Khangar,, Village & Post Baweda Bas, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Raj.)
30. Kalpana Devi Khangar Wife of Shri Uma Shankar,, Village & Post Baweda Bas, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Raj.)
31. Rampyari Sharma Wife of Shri Bal Kishan Upadhyay,, Ward No. 16, Upadhyayon Ka Mohalla, Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
32. Ramcharan Gurjar Son of Shri Amba Lal Gurjar,, Village Panchayat Kushalpura, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
33. Matru Lal Son of Shri Chhotu Lal,, Village Panchayat Borda, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
34. Karam Chand Suthwal Son of Shri Mahadev Prasad,, Village Panchayat Bhaggu Ka Bas, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar (raj.)
35. Ghanshyam Saini Son of Shri Gordhanram Saini,, Village Panchayat Hameerpur, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar (raj.)
36. Laxman Gurjar Son of Shri Harsahay Gurjar,, Village Panchayat Nayabas, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar (raj.) (26 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
37. Jagdish Son of Shri Hardevaram Upadhyay, Sawaibadi.
38. Raji Meena Wife of Shri Shivji Lal Meena,, Village Bhadagpura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary Department of Education School,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents (34). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6900 / 2017
1. Pooranmal Verma Son of Shri Aniram Verma, by Caste Raigar,, Aged About 43 Years, Village & Post Thadoli, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
2. Rodu Singh Son of Shri Mohan Singh,, Village Shambhu Nagar, Post Thadoli, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
3. Ram Lal Raigar Son of Shri Ramdev Raigar,, Village Ghareda, Post Kukad, Tehsil Todaisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
4. Suman Sharma Wife of Shri Mukesh Sharma, Village & Post Lamba Kalan, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
5. Satya Narayan Sharma Son of Shri Giriraj Prasad Sharma,, Dhal Mohalla, Ward No. 11, Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
6. Ishwar Lal Gurjar Son of Shri Ram Dev Gurjar,, Village & Post Mor Bhatiyan, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
7. Kamlesh Jat Son of Shri Shiv Raj Choudhary,, Village Radhaballabhpura, Post Morbhatiyan, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
8. Sharda Saini Wife of Shri Shyoji Lal Nagra,, Village & Post Mor, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.) (27 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
9. Anita Sharma Daughter of Shri Hanuman Prasad Sharma,, Village Bheemgarh, Post Mehru, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
10. Jagdish Lal Keer Son of Shri Kaluram Keer,, Village & Post Mehru, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
11. Kalpna Kumari Daughter of Shri Narayan Lal Damami,, Village Lamba Khurd, Panchayat Kuhada Bujurg, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
12. Raghuveer Prasad Joshi Son of Shri Gopal Lal Joshi,, Village & Post Bavdi, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
13. Mannaram Mali Son of Shri Heera Lal Mali,, Village & Post Bhasu, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
14. Prahlad Bairwa Son of Shri Bakhtawar Bairwa,, Village Badediya Charnan, Post Kanvrawas, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
15. Ramji Lal Sharma Son of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma,, Village Harinarayanpura, Tehsil Kotkhawada, District Jaipur (Raj.)
16. Mukesh Mahawar Son of Shri Dhanna Lal Mahawar,, Village Harinarayanpura, Tehsil Kotkhawada, District Jaipur (Raj.)
17. Suresh Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Manohar Lal Sharma,, Village Panchayat Khijuriya Brahmin, Panchayat Samiti Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
18. Harsahay Meena Son of Shri Lalaram Meena,, Village Vimalpura, Gram Panchayat Jhapda Kala, Tehsil Kothkhawada, District Jaipur (Raj.)
19. Bhagirath Meena Son of Shri Ramdayal Meena,, Village Gadhkapada, Post Jhapda Kala, Tehsil Kotkhawada, District Jaipur (Raj.)
20. Sunita Meena Wife of Shri Ramkesh Meena,, Village Trilokinathpura, Tehsil Kotkhawada, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department,, Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Education School,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
(28 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
3. The Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department,, State of Rajasthan, Panchayat Raj Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Mr. Laxmi Kant,Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Mr. Anoop Dhand, Mr. Suresh Kumar, Mr. G.L.Sharma, Mr. Vigyan Shah, Mr.G S Gouttam, Mr. Y.K.Sharma, Mr. Mohit Soni, Mr.Gajendra Singh Rathore,Mr. SS Ola, Mr. Vijay Pathak, Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, Mr. Shailendra Singh, Mr. Madhukar Tiwari, Mr. Shribhan Gurjar, Mr. Surendra Meel, Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma, Mr. Ganesh Meena, Mr. Naveen Dhuwan, Mr. Arvind Sharma, Mr. Govind Gupta.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K.Gupta, AAG with Mr. Yajuvender Singh.
Mr. Vikram Singh Shekhawat.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order Reportable 12/05/2017 All the Counsel agrees that the matter may be decided finally at this stage. Therefore, the case has been heard finally. Taking into consideration that the matter relates to selections for which there is an interim order restraining the State from opening the result of the advertisement while admitting the writ petition by the coordinate Bench of this Court.
(2) Heard Counsels at length.
(29 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] (3) Writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners challenging the criteria which have been laid down through instructions issued by the State Government for the purpose of selection for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak on various counts. The post of Gram Panchayat Sahyak has been notified vide gazette Notification dated 02.11.2016 wherein Rule 258 of the Rajasthan Panchyati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996') was amended by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016 and following new sub-rule (3) was added as under : -
"(3) Panchayat may appoint any person as Gram Panchayat Sahayak, on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis, for Panchayat Office or for any other work with prior permission of the Chief Executive Officer. He shall be paid from the grant received for the purpose from the State Government on recommendation of the State Finance Commission or out of own income of the Panchayat."
(4) As for the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions, Rule 258 of the Rules of 1996 as it existed prior to the aforesaid amendment is also being quoted :
"258. Categories of posts : (1) There shall be the following categories of posts to be appointed in Panchaya Samitis and Zila Parishads :
(a) State Service posts :
(i) Chief Executive Officer
(ii) Vikas Adhikari
(iii) Accounts Officer
(iv) Assistant Engineers
(v) and such other categories of posts as are prescribed by the Government from time to time.
(b) Subordinate Service :
(30 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
(i) Extension Officer (Panchayat, Education, Co-operative, Progress.)
(ii) Assistant Accounts Officer.
(iii) Accountant/Junior Accountant.
(iv) Junior Engineer.
(c) Ministerial Service : (Ministerial and subordinate posts in Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad service)
(i) Upper Division Clerks including UDC-cum-Steno.
(ii) Lower Division Clerks including Typists.
(iii) Drivers.
(iv) Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers].
(v) Village Level Worker-cum-Secretary Panchayat.
(vi) Fitter.
(vii) Hand pump Mistry.] (5) Submissions of the petitioners are that they are candidates who want to apply for the said post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak but on account of the guidelines which have been issued by the State Government, they apprehend that their selections may not be done on the said post. They have manifold grievances which in short are: -
"(a) that the State Government has not laid down any criteria for selection for the said post;
(b) Interview based selections could not have been made;
(c) Selection criteria of candidate to be a resident of the district in which the concerned Gram Panchayat is situated is unjustified;
(d) The element of transparency in selection is not there and the experience criteria which has been laid down is vague and does not satisfy as to the authority who would be the competent person to issue the experience certificate.
(31 of 42) [CW-2231/2017]
(e) That there is no reservation policy applied for the filling up of the posts.
(f) The posts of Gram Panchayat Sahayak ought to be filled as per the Rules of 1996 and could not have been filled without following the Rules." (6) Counsel for the petitioners have laid much emphasis on the criteria of selection and submit that interview based selections could not have been made. In support thereof, the Counsel for the petitioners relies upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Minor A.Peeriakaruppan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.: 1971 (1) SCC 38. He also relies on the directions made by this Court passed in Surendra Kumar Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 03.04.2017 wherein clause (c) of directions which reads as under:-
"(c) The State Government is further directed to make appointments on the posts created under various schemes sponsored by State or by the Centre on contract basis or otherwise only by conducting selection through open advertisement and after inviting applications and conducting written examinations and selecting persons on merit basis by a transparent method. For the said purpose, the State Government may lay down procedure and a recruiting agency either department wise or a Central nodal agency may be created for the said purpose keeping in view the provisions laid down for conducting public examinations. However, there shall be no interviews method followed in order to avoid any room for arbitrariness or pick and choose method and subsequent litigation;"
(7) Counsel for the petitioners also relies on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others :(2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 172 wherein in para 12, 16 & 17 it has been observed by the Supreme Court as under : -
(32 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] "12. With regard to the first point, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench holds that full effect of the result would be given only after verification of the testimonials, certificates and documents mentioned in the application and mere publication of the selection list on 31.11.2001 did not result in accrual of any right in favour of the candidates, whose names had found place in the select list. Relying on the judgment of this Court in IJ Diwakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1982) SC 1555 and Shankarsan Das v. Union of India, AIR (1991) SC 1612, and the statement made by the Chief Standing counsel on behalf of the State made at the Bar, the Division Bench held that even though the candidates, whose names appeared in the select list, were not made parties to the writ petitions, the writ petitions could not be summarily dismissed on the said ground. We are inclined to agree with this finding of the Division Bench, which is supported by the authority of the Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (supra) and several other judgments of this Court.
16. The Division Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that the merit list could not be prepared on districtwise basis and that restricting the selection and preparation of merit list at the district level was not justified and amounted to discrimination. It was also found that though at one stage the State government had decided to prepare the merit list on the State level, it was suddenly changed to the district level and the reasons advanced for the sudden change were found to be wholly irrelevant and unjustified. The action of the State government in restoring the preparation of merit list from State level to district level was held arbitrary and violative of Articles 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The High Court has referred and relied on a number of judgement of this Court which have frowned upon recruitment on the basis of criteria restricted to candidates from specified local areas.
17. Although a feeble attempt was made by the counsel on behalf of the State respondents that different districts have different dialects and therefore, it would be necessary to restrict the selection to candidates conversant and fluent in those regional dialects, we are not satisfies that adequate material was presented to the High Court on the basis of which this distinction could have been justified. In the first place, there was no material to indicate that dialects vary from district to district. Consequently, there was no material to indicate that a candidate from one district was no likely to be familiar with the dialect of another district for which he applied for training. There was also no material placed on record to indicate that training was to be in local dialect for the local school only. Finally, if the emphasis is really on the regional dialect, nothing prevented the State government from making the knowledge of a specified regional dialect as (33 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] preferential criterion for recruitment. For these reasons, we agree with the view taken by the Division Bench on this issue and hold that restriction of the selection and preparation of merit list at the district level was arbitrary and violative of Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution."
(8) Counsel for the petitioners also stress on the Condition relating to restriction of candidates to participate in the selection from that particular district and relies on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan : (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 562 wherein it has been held in para 13, 27 and 28 as under : -
"13. Before proceeding further we should steer clear of a misconception that surfaced in the course of arguments advanced on behalf of the State and some of the parties. Based on the decisions which countenanced geographical classification for certain weighty reasons such as socio- economic backwardness of the area for the purpose of admissions to professional colleges, it has been suggested that residence within a district or rural areas of that district could be a valid basis for classification for the purpose of public employment as well. We have no doubt that such a sweeping argument which has the overtones of parochialism is liable to be rejected on the plain terms of Article 16(2) and in the light of Art. 16(3). An argument of this nature flies in the face of the peremptory language of Article 16 (2) and runs counter to our constitutional ethos founded on unity and integrity of the nation. Attempts to prefer candidates of a local area in the State were nipped in the bud by this Court since long past. We would like to reiterate that residence by itself be it be within a State, region, district or lesser area within a district cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation, save as provided in Article 16(3). It is not possible to compartmentalize the State into Districts with a view to offer employment to the residents of that District on a preferential basis. At this juncture it is appropriate to undertake a brief analysis of Article 16.
27. These observations, in our view, cannot be legitimately pressed into service for the purpose of justifying reservation or weightage in favour of rural candidates on the ground of nativity/residence for purposes of public employment. The difference in approach in relation to Articles 15 and 16 was indicated by Bhagwati, J. in Pradeep Jain's case and we have quoted the relevant passage extensively. It was made clear (34 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] in Pradeep Jain's case that in the matter of admissions to professional colleges the considerations were different. As far as public employment is concerned, the classification on the basis of residence in a region or locality was broadly held to be constitutionally impermissible. Moreover, the preferential treatment of rural candidates in the instant case is not on the ground that they hail from the backward region. All or most of the villages in the district or the State cannot be presumed to be backward educationally or economically. Such a claim was not accepted in Pradip Tandon's case by the three Judge Bench. Even in Nidamarti's case, it was held that in absence of material, certain regions cannot be dubbed as backward.
28. The justifiability of the plea stemming from the premise that uplifting the rural people is an affirmative action to improve their lot can be tested from the concrete situation which confronts us in the present cases. We are here concerned with the selections to the posts of teachers of primary schools, the minimum qualification being SSC coupled with basic training course in teaching. Can the Court proceed on the assumption that the candidates residing in the town areas with their education in the schools or colleges located in the towns or its peripheral areas stand on a higher pedestal than the candidates who had studied in the rural area schools or colleges? Is the latter comparatively a disadvantaged and economically weaker segment when compared to the former? We do not think so. The aspirants for the teachers jobs in primary schools be they from rural area or town area do not generally belong to affluent class. Apparently they come from the lower middle class or poor background. By and large, in the pursuit of education, they suffer and share the same handicaps as their fellow citizens in rural areas. It cannot be said that the applicants from non- rural areas have access to best of the schools and colleges which the well to do class may have. Further, without any data, it is not possible to presume that the schools and colleges located in the towns- small or big-and their peripheral areas are much better qualitatively, that is to say, from the point of view of teaching standards or infrastructure facilities so as to give an edge to the town candidates over the rural candidates."
(9) It is submitted that once the post is encadered under the Rules of 1996, the Rule of 1996 will operate for the purpose of selection.
(10) Learned Counsel has also taken to Rule 265 to show that there is an age criteria laid down under the Rules of 1996 (35 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] which requires to be adhered to for the purpose of selection. However, the age criteria has been differently mentioned in the advertisements which has been issued by the panchayat and thus, the advertisement and selections being conducted are illegal, unjustified and contrary to Rule 265 of the Rules of 1996. Learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to experience submits that some reasonable criteria ought to have been published with weightage to the experience gained by the candidates who have been working on similar posts in various schemes of the State Government. However, as the experience certificate clause mentioned in the advertisement, does not mention specifically about a particular experience certificate, it is wholly vague and would leave doubt in minds of candidates as to what experience is being taken into consideration for the purpose of selection. The criteria of interview, it is submitted ought to lay down different weightage for different parts which would include for experience as well as for other qualifications but such criteria have not been published and for want of knowledge of such criteria, there would be a lot of room available for arbitrariness in selection.
(11) Per contra, learned Counsel for the State states that the posts which have been notified under the Notification dated 02.11.2016 and incorporated as part of Rule 258(3) is not an encadred posts under the Panchayati Raj Rules, mentioning of the said posts and the Rules of 1996 by the amendment was to empower the panchayat to appoint any person as Gram Panchayat (36 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] Sahayak on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis. The selection of said Gram Panchayat Sahayak is not to be understood as a regular selection. It is further stated that the State has only laid down guidelines for the concerned panchayats to follow so that there can be a general similar appointment criteria of selection for the 9887 Gram Panchayats in all over the Rajasthan. Since the post is essentially meant for a particular panchayat in a particular district, the criteria of resident of that particular district who may apply to that particular panchayat has been laid down. More so, when the selections are to be made on a particular date alone for all the panchayats and a candidate can only apply at a particular panchayat for the purpose of appointment for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak. This is so considering that there are linguistic regions in Rajasthan and the purpose for appointment of Gram Panchayat Sahayak is exclusively for that particular Gram Panchayat to help in the regular day to day working of Gram Panchayat for which a funding is being done at the level of State Finance Commission to the Gram Panchayat so that there may be a proper utilization of the funds. A post has been created at the particular Gram Panchayat and thus the decision to allow a candidate to apply in his own residential area is rational and has a purpose sought to be achieved and on that count, therefore, the guidelines which have been issued cannot be said to be invalid. (12) Next submission relating to the interview as a basis for selection, as advanced by the learned Counsel is that since the (37 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] selection is left for a Gram Panchayat to conduct a general examination of all over Rajasthan level or district level, was neither required nor tenable rather it would have amounted to amendment in the rule taking away right of Gram Panchayat and defeat the purpose of Rule 258(3). Moreover, the appointment is on part time/fixed honorarium/contract basis for a period of only one year which has been included in the Rules of 258(3) hence criteria of interview cannot be faulted. Further it is stated that the reservation policy would also not apply as the maximum number of posts which have been allotted to a Gram Panchayat are only four in number and reservation under direct recruitment is available if there are vacancies of more than six posts in number as per 100 point roster system and, therefore, the submission of the Counsel regarding not following reservation policy is misconceived and would not apply to such selections which are only for one year on honorarium/contractual basis. It is stated that as the selection cannot come within the meaning of direct recruitment as laid down, in Rule 259, it cannot be said that the selection is a method of direct recruitment as envisaged under Rule 265 and, therefore, the age criteria in Rules of 1996 would not apply to the contractual/honorarium appointments of Gram Panchayat Sahayak. The post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak has not been encadered under the Schedule and direct recruitment as mentioned under the Rules relates to the posts under Schedule. It is also pointed out that new sub-rule (8) of Rule 259 was also (38 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] added by way of an amendment dated 02.11.2016 which reads as under : -
" (8) Selection for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis shall be made by Gram Sabha in the manner as may be laid down by the State Government, from time to time."
The same was amended further vide Notification dated 25.01.2017 which reads as under :
Amendment of Rule 259.- In rule 259 of the said rules-
(i) In sub-rule (8), the existing expression " by Gram Sabha" shall be deleted ; and
(ii) After sub-rule (8), so amended, the following new sub-rule (9) shall added namely: - " (9) Any officer of the School Education Department shall be declared as ex-officio Panchayat Elementary Education Offier by the School Education Department."
Thus, the selection for the said post is totally different from what has been envisaged in the regular Rules of 1996 and has to be differently understood. So far as experience certificate part is concerned, it is stated that all the experience certificates which the candidates would submit relating to the government service or any other service, would be examined by the concerned panchayat at the time of interview. However, the criteria has to be solely laid down by the concerned Selection Committee of the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, a general guideline to Gram Panchayats for fixing a strict criteria of interview by allocating marks for different faculties like A, B, C & D etc. has not been laid down since the selection is not being done at the State level or district level.
(39 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] (13) Having considered the submissions of both the parties, this Court finds that the nature and manner of selection for the said post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak carve out separately under the Rules of 1996. By way of an amendment dated 2.11.1996, a separate rules for the said post have been framed. Thus, the criteria for the said post cannot be equated to the criteria for selection of encadered post under the Rules of 1996 and no parity can be drawn between the same. More so, when the post is not of permanent nature. It is to be of either on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis as per the Notfication dated 2.11.1996. As has been informed by the learned Counsel for the respondents, presently, appointment is only made for one year which is on the basis of grant received from the State Fiannce Commissione. In the circumstances, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners for an adopting a criteria akin to the criteria as laid down for the other post under the Rules of 1996 cannot be accepted.
(14) The requirement of being resident of a particular district for the purpose of participating in the selection for a particular Gram Panchayat of the district, is as per the submissions raised at bar cannot be faulted. Once a candidate has to apply at a particular place and can participate in an interview only at a particular place while selections are being conducted all over Rajasthan on one day, such a criteria cannot be said to be irrational. To declare an action as irrational, the purpose sought to be achieved has to be looked into if there is a nexus to the (40 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] purpose sought to be achieved decision has to be taken as rational and justified. There cannot be said to be any arbitrariness in a decision for selection an individual for the purpose of Gram Panchayat Sahayak especially when the post is to be filled by the said panchayat itself and not by another other body. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Shama (supra) was with relation to post which was to be filled by the State Government for all over Rajasthan and not by the body of a particular panchayat. In such circumstances, taking into consideration that applications were being received from all the candidates from all over Rajasthan, granting of bonus marks to a candidate from a particular district was held to be bad, such is not the situation in the present case. It is settled law that law laid down by the Apex Court has to be applied to in the facts and circumstances of each case individually. A slight difference of facts changes the entire scenario and, therefore, in view of this Court, the law laid down in Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) would not apply to the present case. Similarly the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) would also not apply as the teachers were being selected for the entire State of Uttar Pradesh and not for a particular district. (15) This Court is also conscious of the directions issued in the case of Surendra Kumar Gurjar (supra) authored by me where directions were issued relating to the various schemes which are being run by the State Government. Admittedly, if the selections were being done by the State Government at their (41 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] level, the criteria of selection as directed in Surendra Kumar Gurjar (supra) would have applied. However, when it comes to making part time/fixed honorarium/contract basis appointment at the level of panchayat for the purpose of that panchayat alone, criteria should be left to that panchayat alone for selecting on basis of interview provided there is a criteria which the concerned panchayat lays down for selection. If somebody has a particular grievance relating to his/her selection on the ground of bias or otherwise, he or she may have a remedy available in law and a general rule would not apply that the selections cannot be made on interview basis. This Court in the case of Usha Sharma Vs. State : (2007(4) WLC 41) held that State has a power to make selections on 100% interview basis. The law as cited by the learned Counsel in the case Minor A.Peeriakaruppan (supra) was all considered and I would not like to burden further this judgment with the sad cases.
(16) This Court is also satisfied that the reservation criteria would not apply in view of the fact that the selections are of a limited post which are less than four in number and the same is not for a particular year. Thus, it is noted that for a selection on regular posts reservation policy of the State Government is essential. It may also apply in some cases relating to adhoc appointments when the adhoc appointments are likely to continue for years together. In another SBCW No.2413/2017; Dr. Ambedkar Schedule Anusoochit Jai Adhikari-Karamachari (AJAK) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on (42 of 42) [CW-2231/2017] 17.02.2017, this Court has already taken a view that reservation would not apply to the Gram Panchayat Sahayak selection, the order of this Court has also been upheld by the Division Bench. (17) In the circumstances, this Court finds that the respondent-State Government should be allowed to go further with the selection for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak at the respective Gram Panchayat level, for which interviews have already been held. Selections be now made and appointments be given as per the criteria which has been laid down by the State Government and approved hereinabove. . (18) The writ petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J. N.Gandhi/