Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Megh Singh And Ors vs State (Rural Develop An Panchayati ) Anr on 3 May, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6679 / 2017
1. Megh Singh Son of Shri Durjan Singh,, Aged About 33 Years,
Supawas, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan), Presently
Working As Computer Operator At Panchayat Samiti, Kumher,
District Bharatpur
2. Darab Singh Son of Shri Vijay Singh,, Aged About 34 Years,
Village Chowkipura, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
3. Satyaveer Singh Son of Shri Samundra Singh,, Aged About 33
Years, Village Astawan, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan), Presently Working As Computer Operator, Panchayat
Samiti Kumher, District Bharatpur
4. Sonveer Singh Son of Shri Gajendra Singh, by Caste Jat,, Aged
About 30 Years, Village Dhhakas, Gram Panchayat Kumher,
Panchayat Samiti Kumher, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
5. Raghuveer Singh Son of Shri Mohan Singh, by Caste Jat,, Aged
About 29 Years, Village Roondh Bhatawali, Gram Panchayat
Bhatawali, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Rural
Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Officer,, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur.
3. Block Development Officer, Kumher,, District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Goyal For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 03/05/2017 Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made by a (2 of 4) [CW-6679/2017] Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ petition Number 4582/2017, decided on 3rd April, 2017, observing thus:
"(a) The State Government is restrained from appointing any persons on contract basis or otherwise allowing any person to work through placement agency on any government post or posts created under any particular scheme henceforth;
(b) The State Government is henceforth directed to make appointments only in accordance with the rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the various services in the State or the rules framed for the various departments, Corporations under the State;
(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;
(d) The merit of the candidates so prepared, shall be published showing the marks obtained by each candidate and after publishing the answer key;
(e) In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in (3 of 4) [CW-6679/2017] the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mitendra Singh Rathore (SLP No.32671/2013 decided on 17.02.2017, the State Government may provide additional bonus marks to those candidates who have prior working experience with the State Government. The bonus marks quantum should be on the basis of number of years of service already rendered by any contractual employee but the exact quantum may be decided by the Government while conducting selections for individual schemes/posts;
(f) Every attempt should be made to see that the entire selection process is transparent and without any ambiguity;
(g) If any selections are found to be wrongful, accountability of the concerned Officials who have conducted selection must be necessarily fixed and action be taken under the relevant provisions of law against them;
(h) Considering that such exercise would take some time to be implemented, this Court grants three months time to the Government to make such provisions from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order;
(i) All the persons presently working in the State Government through placement agency will now henceforth be treated as working directly on contractual basis till the aforesaid selection process is completed;
(j) Services of the persons however, shall be continued only if the Government takes a decision to continue them otherwise their services shall be dispensed with forthwith and new selections shall only be conducted after issuing advertisements as directed herein above.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of."
(4 of 4) [CW-6679/2017] It is further contended that the case of the petitioner stands covered under the direction (i).
In view of the statement made; the instant writ application is disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Surendra Kumar Gurjar (supra).
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. SS/133