Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Malu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 10 May, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4374 / 2018
Malu Ram S/o Shri Hukma Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Resident of
Manpura, Gram Panchayat Shyamgarh, Tehsil- Nawa, District
Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Sashan Secretary and
Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Department, Gove. of Rajasthan (Panchayati Raj) Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The District Collector, Nagaur, District- Nagaur.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
6. The Gram Panchayat, Shyamgarh, Tehsil- Nawa, District-
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
7. Principal & President School Development and Menegement
Committee (SDMC) & Panchayat Function Officer, Govt. Senior
Secondary School, Shyamgarh, Tehsil-Nawa, District- Nagaur, Raj.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2581 / 2018
1. Shankar Lal S/o Sh. Gulab Ji, Aged About 39 Years, B/c Katara,
R/o Bhadar Kalan, Kali Ka Parda, Post Dhuved, Via Dhambola,
Tehsil Simalvada, District Dungarpur.
2. Mahendra Kumar Bhamor, S/o Sh. Nanji Bhamor, Aged About
36 Years, B/c Bhamor, R/o Bhadar Kalan, Tehsil Simalvada, District
Dungarpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary., Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2
3. Zila Parishad Dungarpur Through the Chief Executive Officer,
Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.
4. The District Establishment Committee Dungarpur Through Its
Chairman.
5. The District Education Officer, (Secondary Education), District
Dungarpur (Raj.)
6. The District Education Officer., (Elementary Education) District
Dungarpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3895 / 2018
Pawan Kumar Janu S/o Shri Nagendra, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident of VPO Bahadurwas, District Jhunjhunu.
----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. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu.
4. District Education Officer, District Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3900 / 2018
Kishan Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 25
Years, Resident of VPO Jakhal, Tehsil Navalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu.
----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. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu.
4. District Education Officer, District Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
3
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4309 / 2018
1. Asu Singh S/o Shri Chatar Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Village Kerla, Tehsil Bapini, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj).
2. Balaram S/o Shri Nimbu Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village
Aau, Tehsil Bapini, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur (Raj.)
4. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Jodhpur (Raj.)
5. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer, Government Senior
Secondary School, Krishna Nagar, Teh. Bapini, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4491 / 2018
Randeep Singh S/o Gurtej Singh, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste
Jat Sikh, Resident of Ward No. 2, 22 KSP, Ariyanwali, Tehsil &
District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
4. District Education Officer (Elementary), Hanumangarh.
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh.
6. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Ariyanwali, Panchayat Samiti
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
7. School Development Management Committee, Government Sr.
Secondary School, Ariyanwali, Tehsil Hanumangarh, District
4
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4567 / 2018
Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Mula Ram Sharma, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Village Maliya, Post Office Sonri, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Hanumangarh.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
6. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gram Panchayat,
Kulchandra, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh Cum Head Master,
Govt. Secondary School, Kulchandra, Tehsil Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh.
7. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4582 / 2018
1. Vijay Singh S/o Shri Rawta Ram, Aged About 39 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident of Village Badbirana, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
2. Pankaj Kumar S/o Shri Parmeshwar Lal, Resident of Village
Badbirana, Tehsil Nohar, 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 Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
5
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
6. District Education Officer (Elementary), Hanumangarh.
7. School Development and Management Committee, Govt. Senior
Secondary School, Badbirana, Gram Panchayat Badbirana,
Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District Hanumangarh Through Its
President.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4598 / 2018
Narendra Kumar, Son of Jai Narayan, Aged About 29 Years, By
Caste Sharma, Resident of VPO Bhadi, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through the Principal Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Hanumangarh.
5. The Gram Panchayat, Bhadi, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh, Through Its Sarpanch.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4599 / 2018
Deepak Sharma, Son of Shri Baldev Sharma, Aged About 35
Years, By Caste Sharma, Resident of Ward No. 21 Bhadra, Tehsil
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through the Principal Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
6
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Hanumangarh.
5. The Gram Panchayat, Janana, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra,
District Hanumangarh, Through Its Sarpanch.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4606 / 2018
Ratanlal Son of Sh. Kisana Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident of
Village Hemera, Tehsil & 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. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
4. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Sherera, Tehsil Bikaner, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4607 / 2018
Rikta Mal Sharma Son of Sh. Laxminarayan Sharma, Aged About
29 Years, Resident of Village Post Sherera, Tehsil & 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. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
4. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Sherera, Tehsil Bikaner, District Bikaner.
7
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4609 / 2018
Hanuman Ram Son of Sh. Amara Ram, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident of Village Rajera, Tehsil & 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. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
4. Panchayat Prarmbhik Shiksha Adhikari, Cum Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary School, Rajera, Tehsil Bikaner, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4617 / 2018
Bhagwan Dan S/o Shri Inder Dan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village Koda, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (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, Jaisalmer.
3. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education)
Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer.
4. Gram Panchayat, Kapuriya, Panchayat Samiti Sam District
Jaisalmer Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Kapuriya, Panchayat Samiti, Sam, District Jaisalmer
Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (PEEO).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4619 / 2018
1. Manju Singh Balla W/o Shri Keshar Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident of Kunthwa, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
2. Rani Kunwar D/o Shri Virendra Singh, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident of Kunthwa, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
8
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Zila Parishad, Rajsamand Through Its Chief Executive
Officer.
3. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Khamnaur, District
Rajsamand.
4. The District Elementary Education Officer, Rajsamand.
5. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gram Panchayat
Kunthwa, District Rajsamand.
6. The Gram Panchayat Kunthwa Through Its Gram Sewak.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4621 / 2018
Chhotu Singh S/o SangarmSingh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Vilalge Sedariya Kupavtaan, Post Samuja, Tehsil Ahore, District
Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jalore,
District Jalore, Rajasthan.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore, District Jalore,
Rajasthan.
4. Block Elementary, Education Officer, Jalore, District Jalore,
Rajasthan.
5. The President, School Development & Management Committee,
Gram Panchayat, Samuja, Panchayat Samiti, Jalore, District
Jalore.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4622 / 2018
Sukh Mahindra Singh S/o Shri Albel Singh Khosa, Aged About 42
Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o V.P.O. Makkasar, Near Bus Stand,
9
Tehsil Ravatsar, 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 Makkasar, Panchayat Samiti Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Makkasar, District Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat
Elementary Education Officer (PEEO).
6. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4627 / 2018
Nepal Singh S/o Bhairav Singh Chouhan, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Village Karwa Chhappaniya, Post Khudrada, Tehsil Aspur,
District Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dungarpur.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur.
4. The Primary Elementary Education Officer, Gram Panchayat
Nepalpura, Panchayat Samiti Aspur, Dungarpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4680 / 2018
Sandeep Kumar Chouhan S/o Shri Prema Ram Chouhan, Aged
About 41 Years, Resident of Village 6 RWM, Gram Panchayat 4
DWM, Panchayat Samiti Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
10
----Petitioner
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-
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh (Raj.).
6. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Rawatsar,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
7. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer/ Chairmen Cum
Principal, Govt. Sr. Sec. School, 4 DWM, Panchayat Samiti,
Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4687 / 2018
1. Jugta Ram S/o Shri Heera Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village Kadumbanada, Post Jhanwar, Panchayat Samiti Luni,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Ashok S/o Shri Nathmal Mehra, R/o Meghwalo Ka Bas, Jatavas,
Jhanwar, Panchayat Samiti Luni, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Bhagirath Singh Choudhary S/o Babu Ram, R/o 1049, Jato Ki
Dhani, Jatavas, Jhanwar, Panchayat Samiti Luni, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----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 Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
11
6. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
8. The Headmaster/Chairman, School Development Management
Committee, Government Secondary School, Kadumbanada, Gram
Panchayat Badla Nagar, Panchayat Samit Luni, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4688 / 2018
Sonu Nain D/o Shri Krishanlal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o VPO
Mirjewali Mer, Tehsil Tibbi, 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, Kulchandra, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Kulchandra, District Hanumangarh Through Its
Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (PEEO).
6. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4739 / 2018
Vikash Beniwal, Son of Shri Raj Kapoor, Aged About 29 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident of VPO Suratpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through the Principal Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
12
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Hanumangarh.
5. The Gram Panchayat, Gadhichhani, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra,
District Hanumangarh, Through Its Sarpanch.
6. The School Development and Management Committee,
Gadhichhani, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4742 / 2018
1. Sukhdev Ram S/o Shri Sugana Ram, Aged About 22 Years, B/c
Jat, R/o Village Aachina, Tehsil Khivnsar, District Nagaur (Raj.)
2. Sapna Changal D/o Shri Dhanna Ram, W/o Shri Nimba Ram,
R/o Village Hesaba Aachina, Tehsil Khivnsar, District Nagaur (Raj
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Block Elementary Education Officer, Khivnsar, District Nagaur.
4. Zila Parishad Nagaur Through Its Chief Executive Officer.
5. School Development & Management Committee Government
Senior Secondary School, Aachina, Panchayat Samiti Khivnsar,
District Nagaur Through Ex-Officio Panchayat Elementary
Education Officer.
6. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Nagaur.
7. The District Level Committee Through District Collector, Nagaur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4775 / 2018
Rekha Kumari Kharadi, Daughter of Shri Bhagwan Lal Kharadi,
Aged About 32 Years, Resident of Kherwada Chela, Gram
Panchayat Kherwada, Panchayat Samiti, Dungarpur, District
Dungarpur.
13
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Dungarpur.
4. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Dungarpur, District Dungarpur.
5. The School Development and Management Committee,
Government Middle School, Kherwada, District Dungarpur,
Through Its Chairman.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4815 / 2018
Menka D/o Shri Daleep Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Maseetawali, Tehsil Tibbi, 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, Maseetawali, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Maseetawali, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
6. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4820 / 2018
Asu Singh S/o Shri Chatar Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village
Kerla, Tehsil Bapini, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj).
----Petitioner
14
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur (Raj).
4. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Jodhpur (Raj.)
5. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer, Government Senior
Secondary School, Kerla, Teh. Bapini, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4860 / 2018
Jamni Kumar D/o Dilip Singh, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Dhanak,
R/o Village Lilki Post Mehlana Tehsil Rajgarh District Churu.
----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. Director, Primary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Rajagarh, District
Churu.
5. District Education Officer, Primary Education District Churu.
6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.
7. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer,
Government Primary School, Kanjan District Churu.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5000 / 2018
Shamsher Khan S/o Sh. Shah Mohammad, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Village Phephana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
15
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Hanumangarh.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
6. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gram Panchayat
Fefana, Panchyat Samiti Nohar, District Hanumangarh Cum
Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Fefana, Panchayat
Samiti Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
7. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5001 / 2018
Mohan Lal S/o Sh. Phoola Ram, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste
S.C, R/o Ward No. 13, V.P.O. Nukera, Tehsil Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Hanumangarh.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
6. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gram Panchayat,
Chack Heersinghwala, Panchyat Samiti Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh Cum Principal, Govt. Secondary School, Chack
Heersinghwala, Panchyat Samiti Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.
7. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
16
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5002 / 2018
Atma Ram S/o Sh. Bhajan Lal, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste
O.B.C, R/o Ward No. 5, V.P.O Nukera, Tehsil Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Thorugh the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Hanumangarh.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
6. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gram Panchayat
Nukera, Panchyat Samiti Sangaria, District Hanumangarh Cum
Principal, Govt. Secondary School, Nukera, Panchyat Samiti
Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.
7. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5011 / 2018
Mohan Lal S/o Sh. Jaya Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Seerviyon
Ki Dhani, Kalauna Bilara, Tehsil Bilara, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.
6. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gram Panchayat,
17
Kalavana, Panchyat Samiti Bilara, District Jodhpur Cum Principal,
Govt. Aadarsh Secondary Secondary School, Kalavana, Panchyat
Samiti Bilara, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5012 / 2018
Himata Ram S/o Sh. Teja Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Meeno
Ka Bas, Village Panchota, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jalore.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore.
6. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer/Chairman Cum
Principal, School Development Management Committee, Govt.
Adarsh Sr. Secondary School, Panchota, Panchayat Samiti, Ahore,
District Jalore.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5161 / 2018
1. Narayan Ram Sen S/o Shri Tej Ram, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident of Village Post Phalasund, Tehsil Bhaniyana, District
Jaisalmer.
2. Udai Singh S/o Shri Narpat Singh, Village Post Rawatapura,
Tehsil Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer.
----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 Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
18
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer
6. District Education Officer (Elementary), Jaisalmer
7. School Development and Management Committee, Govt.
Aadarsh Senior Secondary School, Manasar, Gram Panchayat
Manasar, Panchayat Samiti Sankra, District Jaisalmer Through Its
President.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5185 / 2018
Nathuram S/o Shri Hari Singh Jat, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste
Jat, R/o Kikarliya, Gram Panchayat Rampura Matoriya, Tehsil
Rawatsar, 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,., Rampura Matoriya, Panchayat Samiti
Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Rampura Matoriya, District Hanumangarh Through Its
Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (PEEO).
6. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5267 / 2018
Sarvjeet Kaur D/o Sh. Teja Singh W/o Sh. Gurjeet Singh, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o V.P.O Santpura, Tehsil Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
19
Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Hanumangarh.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
6. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gram Panchayat
Santpura, Panchyat Samiti Sangaria, District Hanumangarh Cum
Principal, Govt. Secondary Secondary School, Santpura, Panchyat
Samiti Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5286 / 2018
Nathu Singh S/o Shri Sumer Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Ward No 2 Gajsukhdesar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (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, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education), Bikaner
District Bikaner.
4. Gram Panchayat, Gajsukhdesar, Panchayat Samiti Nokha
District Bikaner Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Gajsukhdesar, District Bikaner Through Its Panchayat
Elementary Education Officer (PEEO).
6. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Nokha District Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5304 / 2018
Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste
Jat, Resident of Ward No. 3, Khinania, 1 B Barani, Hanumangarh,
Nohar, Rajasthan - 335523.
----Petitioner
20
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, Hanumangarh.
3. District Collector, Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat Khinaniya, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh,
Through Its Secretary.
5. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Adarsh
Secondary School, Khinaniya, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5337 / 2018
Bhal Singh S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 37 Years, R/o VPO
Khachwana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
----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. Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Khachwana,
Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5342 / 2018
Sharwan Dan S/o Shri Gopal Dan, Aged About 31 Years, B/c
Charan, R/o Village Suwap, Tehsil Bapini, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur (Raj.)
21
4. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Jodhpur (Raj.)
5. The Panchayat Primary Education Officer Government Senior
Secondary School, Kerla, Teh. Bapini, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5450 / 2018
Saroj W/o Shri Dalip Singh, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste
Swami, R/o Ward No. 20, Sangaria, 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, Chak Hira Singhwala, Panchayat Samiti
Sangaria, District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Chak Hira Singhwala, District Hanumangarh Through
Its Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (PEEO).
6. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5515 / 2018
1. Ajeet Singh S/o Chain Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village
Post Jodhasar, Sri Dungargarh District Bikaner
2. Ratan Singh S/o Ugham Singh, R/o Village Post Jodhasar, Sri
Dungargarh District Bikaner
----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. Director, Primary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
22
4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sheruna, District
Bikaner.
5. District Education Officer, Primary Education, District Bikaner.
6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner
7. The Paden Panchayat Elementary Education Officer,
Government Adarsh Sr. Sec. School, Jodhasar, Sri Dungargarh
District Bikaner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5813 / 2018
Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Lal Chand, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village Fatehgarh Khilerybass, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through 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, Fatehgarh, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Fatehgarh, Panchayat Samiti Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh Thorugh Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
6. Sharda Devi D/o Gopal Ram, Ward No. 5, Khilery Bass,
Fatehgarh, Hanumangarh.
7. Simar Pal Kaur D/o Labh Singh, Ward No. 5, Khilery Bass,
Fatehgarh, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5583 / 2018
Gurdeep Singh S/o Shri Balwant Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
Resident of Ward No.6, Village & Post- Gudia, Tehsil Tibbi, District-
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
23
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj &
Rural Development Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh (Raj.)
3. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner (Raj.)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh. (Raj.)
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
6. Ex Officio Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (PEEO),
Gudiya, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.)
7. Abdul Khalik S/o Taj Mohd., Resident of Village & Post- Gudia,
Tehsil Tibbi, District- Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5736 / 2018
1. Sunil Kumar Dave Son of Madan Lal Dave, Aged About 41
Years, Resident of Dave Niwas, Darji Gali, Arnod, District
Pratapgarh.
2. Anil Kumar Sharma Son of Jata Shanker Sharma, Resident of
Near Jain Temple, Arnod, District Pratapgarh.
3. Ashish Thakur Son of Anandi Lal Thakur, Resident of Area Pati
Road, New Sai Mandir, Pratapgarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
3. Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
4. District Collector, Pratapgarh.
5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Education, Pratapgarh.
24
6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pratapgarh.
7. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Arnod,
District Pratapgarh.
8. School Development and Management Committee, Govt. Senior
Secondary School Achlawada, Panchayat Samiti Arnod, District
Pratapgarh, Through Its Chairman.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5853 / 2018
Ram Kumar S/o Shri Gangajal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Nukera,
Tehsil Sangaria, 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, Nukera, Panchayat Samiti Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Nukera, District Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat
Elementary Education Officer (PEEO).
6. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6003 / 2018
Anil Kumar Bishnoi S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Lakhasar, Tehsil Pilibangan, 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
25
3. The District Education Officer (elementary Education),
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. Gram Panchayat, Lakhasar, Panchayat Samiti Pilibangan,
District Hanumangarh Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Lakhasar, Panchayat Samiti, Pilibangan, District
Hanumangarh Through Its Panchayat Elementary Education
Officer (PEEO).
6. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Maniram, R/o Village Lakhasar, Panchayat
Samiti, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5326 / 2018
Bhavesh Charan S/o Shri Fatesh Singh Charan, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Behind Water Works, Pahadganj 2nd, Lalsagar, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, Rajasthan.
----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, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan
4. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
6. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
7. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
8. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mandore, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan
9. The Principal/PEEO/chairman, School Development
Management Committee, Government Senior Secondary School,
Paldi Mangaliya, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
26
10. The Gram Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Paldi Mangaliya, Block
Mandore, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5688 / 2018
1. Laxman Singh Son of Shri Ganga Singh by Caste Rajput, Aged
About 37 Years, Resident of Village Khirja Tiban Tehsil Shergarh
District Jodhpur.
2. Om Prakash Son of Shri Har Lal, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Bishnoi, Resident of Village Kanasar Tehsil Phalodi District Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
School Education, Secretariat, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The District Collector, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur.
4. The District Education Officer (elementary Education), Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur
5. Gram Panchayat, Palina, Panchayat Samiti Lohawat, District-
Jodhpur Through Its Secretary.
6. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Palina, District Jodhpur Through Its Panchayat
Elementary Education Officer(PEEO).
7. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Lohawat, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4283 / 2018
AmmanaRam Siddhu S/o Sh. Birbal Ram, Aged About 27 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident of Village Kalaser, Tehsil and District Bikaner.
----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, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education) Bikaner.
27
4. Gram Panchayat, Kalaser, Panchayat Samiti Bikaner, District
Bikaner Through Its Secretary.
5. The School Development and Management Committee, Gram
Panchayat Kalaser, District Bikaner Through Its Panchayat
Elementary Education Officer (PEEO).
6. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bikaner, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4501 / 2018
Kishan Lal S/o Sjhri Bhaniram, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste-
Jat, Resident of Village- Sahwa, Tehsil- Taranagar, District- Churu
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, School Education
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.
3. District Education Officer (Elementary), Churu.
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Taranagar, District-
Churu.
5. Secretary and President SDMC, Gram Panchayat- Raiyatunda,
Tehsil- Taranagar, District- Churu.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5640 / 2018
Dhanna Ram S/o Shri Bhinva Ram Jat, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 15, Rajaldesar, Tehsil Ratangarh District
Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
28
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.
4. District Education Officer (Elementary), Churu.
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ratangarh District
Churu.
6. Gram Panchayat Simsiya Bidawatan, Panchayat Samiti
Ratangarh, District Churu Through Gram Sevak Cum Secretary.
7. School Development Management Committee, Government
Secondary School, Simsiya Bidawatan District Churu.
8. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer Cum Principal, Govt.
Secondary School, Simsiya Bidawatan District Churu.
9. Madan Lal Meena S/o Shri Hulasa Ram Meena, Resident of
Village Jeganiya Bidawatan Via Rajaldesar Tehsil Ratangarh,
District Churu.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5757 / 2018
Kishan Lal Ninoma Son of Devi Lal Ninoma, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident of Village Post Sanchiya, Tehsil Bichhiwara, District
Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. District Collector, Dungarpur.
5. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Dungarpur
6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.
7. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Bichhiwara, District Dungarpur.
8. School Development and Management Committee, Govt. Senior
Secondary School Sanchiya, Panchayat Samiti Bichhiwara, District
Dungarpur, Through Its Chairman.
----Respondents
29
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid, Mr. Anil Vyas, Mr. Arjun
Purohit, Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, Mr.
Bhanwar Singh, Mr. Bhoop Singh Moond, Mr.
Pankaj Gupta, Mr. Prahlad Singh Bhati, Mr.
PK Poonia Mr. HR Vishnoi, Mr. Vijay Jain, Mr.
VR Choudhary, Mr. Inderjeet Yadav, Mr
Ripudaman Singh, Mr. Surendra Singh
Choudhary, Mr. KR Saharan, Mr. JS Bhaleria,
Mr. VS Bhawla, Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore,
Mr. Shreekant Verma, Mr. HS Sandhu, Mr.
Yashpal Khilree, Mr. Jog Singh, Mr. Rajesh K
Bhardwaj, Mr. Sushil Solanki, Mr. Hanuman
Singh Choudhary, Mr Ashvini Swami, Mr.
Sanjay Mathur
For Respondent(s) :Mr. SS Ladrecha, AAG Assisted by Mr. Vikas
Choudhary
Mr. PC Sankhala, DEO Legal, Ele. Jodhpur.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 10/05/2018
1. Since the grievance raised in all the present writ petitions is common, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4374/2018.
"1. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the order dated 15.09.2017 and 26.09.2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
2. By an appropriate writ,order or direction, the original appointment order dated 17.02.2017 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 01.02.2017 of the petitioner on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak may kindly be appointment.30
3. The candidature of the petitioner may kindly be considered and he be appointed on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak - 2016.
4. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. For the purpose of the present adjudication, the facts are being gathered from the petitions collectively.
4. The common grievance of the present petitioners is pertaining to their non-selection on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak in their respective Gram Panchayats even when they were more eligible and were required to be given appointment.
5. This Court has seen that since inception the respondents have conducted the selection exercise for Gram Panchayat Sahayak for the third time, in the backdrop of communication/advertisement dated 21.03.2018 and 22.03.2018.
6. 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).
7. The amended Rules were named as "The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016". As per the said 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 31 time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis, for Panchayat Office.
8. 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 iapk;r lfefr dk LFkkuh; fuoklh gksuk vko';d gSA"
9. 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 "
10. The selection process had to happen as per the 32 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
- ,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 33 tk;sxhA"
11. 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 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."
12. 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.
13. At the first instance, the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, while adjudicating the dispute pertaining to Gram Panchayat Sahayaks, passed the order in the matter of 34 Bodu Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2231/2017 decided on 12.05.2017). The relevant portion of this judgment reads as under :-
"(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 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."
14. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench has adjudicated the grievances of the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks also in the matter of Rakesh Chaudhary & Ors. VS. State of Raj. & ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.757/2017, decided on 22.05.2017). The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :-
"6. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge while considering the case in para 11 held as under:-35
"(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 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 aid 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."
7. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, more particularly, when the State Government has come with particular scheme to implement through the local people with a laudable object where it will not be appropriate to disturb the same at this stage, otherwise this litigation will take one 36 year and the very object of implementing the scheme will be frustrated.
8. In that view of the matter, in the interest of over all people, it would not be appropriate to interfere in this matter. However, the arrangement so made will not be allowed for more than one year. 9. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. The same is dismissed.
10. However, this will not be treated as precedent."
15. This Hon'ble Court has further adjudicated the grievances of the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks in the matter of Bhoma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6023/2017, decided on 01.06.2017), whereby a Committee was constituted, which was to decide the representations of the petitioners, and the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :-
"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 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 37 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 terms."
16. This Court has also adjudicated the controversy pertaining to the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks in the case of Subhash Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12299/2017, decided on 27.11.2017, whereby the opportunity of hearing was given to the candidates already selected on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak and were sought to be terminated. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :-
"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 38 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 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."
17. Thereafter, this Court while adjudicating the dispute pertaining to the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks passed the judgment in the matter of Mani Lal Pandor Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15837/2017, decided 13.12.2017) whereby the writ petitions were dismissed while upholding the 39 circular dated 15.09.2017 whereby the respondents were permitted to carry on the selection exercise of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks for the Gram Panchayats concerned, in respect of which the selection was not already made. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows :-
"20. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing record of case alongwith affidavit and circulars, which are there on record, this Court is of the opinion that the selection of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks was in accordance with the amendment in Rules of 1996, particularly, Rule 258 sub-rule(iii), which was Amendment Act no.13 of 1994 which amended Rules namely Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Second Amendment Rules, 2016. From a bare reading of Rule, it is clear that for administration of Gram Panchayat a post has been created and the same shall be for part-time for a limited contract period. This Court has also seen circulars which have been issued from time to time prescribing eligibility criteria and the law laid down in other service conditions for recruitment, particularly, the circular which lay down parameters on which respective local bodies have to conduct recruitment, which is to be finally approved by the School Development and Managing Committee of the respective Panchayats and finally approved by the District Level Committee constituted by the respondents. The petitioners who participated in the aforementioned exercise could not qualify and were disqualified at SDMC/DLC level leaving the exercise of completion of appointment of Gram Panchayat Sahayak incomplete in number of Panchayats.
State counsel has stated that there were 9893 Gram Panchayats for whom appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak were to be conducted, however, the exercise resulted into appointment of 19687 Gram Panchayat Sahayaks.
The petitioners on such non-completion have approached this Court mainly aggrieved by opening of process by the new circular dated 15.9.2017 as the petitioners do not wish to participate again in the same process even when the post is a part-time contractual and for limited period. This Court is of the opinion that such posts which are being filled as per Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 are contractual posts and discretion has been given to the 40 concerned Gram Panchayats and the local bodies and local authority to complete the selection process by giving broader guidelines in the preceding selection process. The respondents cannot be bound in the recruitment process in such a way that contractual appointments shall have to meet the rigor of regular selection process exercise.
The application preferred by the complainant candidates on the basis of which ouster of the present writ petitioners has happened are made party in the present petition.
This Court finds that the circulars have broadly given parameters for selections including basic qualifications and basic guidelines prescribing criteria for making selection while leaving the final selections to SDC/DLC local level so that need of the Panchayat is kept in mind while making such appointment, which is of paramount consideration in the given set of circumstance where requirement of such person is only for fulfilling the duties which may vary from place to place and Panchayat to Panchayat.
This Court has also interfered in the selection process in the matter of Subhash Chandra while binding the respondents to secure the appointed candidates by not ousting them without giving any opportunity of hearing and the ousted candidates have been reasonably protected by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the matter of Sunita Sharma, whereby the ousted candidates have to give their representations before the Committee constituted by the Hon`ble Court and such Committee is also in existence. Thus, a complete redressal system for the persons ousted as well in the persons approved/ appointed is in place by virtue of both the judgment referred. The respondents themselves were cautious that these are contractual appointments and any delay would cause the complete exercise to be frustrated. On a bare reading of circular dated 15.9.2017, the same is justified as it only calls for compliance of the earlier circulars and open a fresh selection process for the Gram Panchayats where the selection could not be completed in the earlier selection exercise. In light of the affidavit filed by the State, it is clear that the exercise shall be conducted by a particular criteria to be decided by local SDMC and, thus, it shall fulfill the requirements of the local bodies. As such, the ouster of the candidates is always an outcome in any selection exercise and it shall 41 be in huge numbers but in such contractual appointments they cannot be communicated reasons for their ouster. No indulgence can be granted to them by this Court as factual matrix of each case is different. As far as inclusion of fresh candidates is concerned, the same is done by the respondents only where earlier selection process did not culminate into final selection and thus opening the same would be justified in light of the basic parameters of the law. It is expected that SDMC and DLC shall act in accordance with law by maintaining maximum transparency in the selection process which shall be in accordance with the circular dated 15.9.2017. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petitions are dismissed and no interference is called for in the conditions of the circular dated 15.9.2017 or selection exercise of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks for the remaining Gram Panchayat where the same could not be completed on the earlier occasion. "
18. This Court has further adjudicated the dispute of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks in the matter of Pawan Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1704/2018, decided on 12.03.2018) whereby the exhaustive directions were given to the respondents, which reads as follows :-
"42. It is not disputed by either of the parties that this one year appointment on contractual basis, in pursuance of Rule 258(3) of the Rules of 1996 shall be completed in May, 2018 for all the petitioners.
43. This Court, in light of the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Rakesh Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), disposes of the present writ petitions with the following observations and directions:
(i) One year contractual appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak shall be maintained qua the petitioners, until completion of the said one year in May, 2018, in accordance with the spirit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Rakesh Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra).
(ii) No changes in the appointments of the petitioners shall be made at this stage, until May, 2018.
(iii) The respondents shall be free to scrutinize the 42 eligibility, merit and work performance of the petitioners on completion of one year, in terms of the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench.
(iv) The respondents shall, after making such consideration, be free not to extend the contract of the petitioners, if some gross irregularity, under-performance or ineligibility or merit is ascertained by them at that stage afresh.
(v) The very purpose of appointment Gram Panchayat Sahayaks for a period of one year after bringing in the amendment in the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, particularly Rule 258(3) of the Rules of 1996, which was added, was with a motive of focus on empowering the local body of gram panchayat in its first phase and hence, the State has to be given some time for the scheme to settle, and thus, the circulars in vogue will be revisited as per requirement.
(vi) Number of circulars that have been issued by the respondents to execute Rule 258(3) of the Rules of 1996 are laudable, but at the same time, this Court is constrained to observe that the respondents ought to have a more transparent, fair and common criteria for assessing the merit of the candidates for making such appointments of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks across the State of Rajasthan in future.
(vii) In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court also directs the respondents that by the time this tenure of one year of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks is over in May, 2018, the State of Rajasthan shall be under a legal obligation to provide for a common, transparent and logical criteria for assessing the merit for giving equal opportunity to all the candidates, subject to eligibility stipulated in the prevailing circulars.
(viii) The circulars in vogue shall remain in currency as per the requirement of the respondents to execute the recruitment, but in addition to such circulars, the basic criteria, which has been left to the concerned local bodies, shall be worked out by the State and a common criteria shall be thrashed so as to give appropriate weightage to the experience and the computation of merit as per the qualifications required for such contractual post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak.
(ix) Thus, as per the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment in Rakesh Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), the respondents shall be required to 43 continue the petitioners selected and the given appointment shall continue with the respondents, until their one year is completed and the above-mentioned directions are complied with.
(x) It is made clear that the uniform criteria that shall be adopted by the State of Rajasthan before the next selection exercise shall not be an impediment in continuance of the persons, who have already been appointed, in case the respondents choose to extend their contract after making appropriate evaluation and assessment.
(xi) When the new criteria, as directed above, is made applicable in the next round of appointments in the second year of appointment for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak, at that time, the grievance of the persons, who feel prejudiced at the appointment already made, shall also be considered afresh.
To conclude, the two basic reasons why this Court has passed the aforementioned order are, (a) the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench, as aforementioned, whereby, the Hon'ble Division Bench has noted that the appointments are only for a period of one year, and short term interference at the fag end of the contractual period may not be warranted and; (b) the non- application of mind is reflected from the impugned orders."
19. Learned counsels for the petitioners have pointed out that consideration of the petitioners for appointment as Gram Panchayat Sahayak in their respective Gram Panchayats is not being done by the respondents on various counts, including the experience certificate, non-merit, other judgments, improper attestation, malafide, objections in approval, improper following of the recommendation made by SDMC / DLC etc.
20. Learned counsels for the petitioners, at the outset, made a limited argument that their issues have been repeatedly being taken up with the respondents but the respondents have failed to make proper redressal of the dispute raised by them. 44
21. Learned counsels for the petitioners have further averred that the third round of appointment was being carried out by the respondents in pursuance of the various advertisements issued on 21.03.2018 and 22.03.2018.
22. Learned counsels for the petitioners have further stated that the judgment in Pawar Kumar's case (supra) passed by this Court protected the incumbent candidates in some cases, however, their grievances were not being heard on the count of the fact that until May, 2018 those candidates stood protected by order of the Division Bench and Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court.
23. Learned counsels for the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court to the extent that the respondents may be directed to take representations of the petitioners and pass speaking orders thereon before giving any new appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak in the concerned Gram Panchayats only, in respect of which the petitioners are contesting for employment.
24. Learned counsels for the petitioners further state that in the Gram Panchayats where appointment have already been made, the continuance thereof may be permitted in light of the earlier judgment passed in Pawan Kumar's case (supra), but since all those appointments are protected only for the first term of contract, and any extension or renewal of the contract can only be made after the grievance of the petitioners are appropriately redressed and the same should be abided by the respondents. If at all the appointment needs to be continued by virtue of existing contracts, then after the tenure of the contract first signed is over, 45 the respondents should be made to apply their mind on the dispute, redressal whereof is being sought by the petitioners and only after application of mind, fresh extension / renewal of the contract may be made.
25. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri SS Ladrecha, assisted by Mr. Vikas Choudhary, learned AAAG makes a categorically statement that any orders given by this Court to consider the issues raised by the petitioners for their respective Gram Panchayats shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law, before proceeding further with any kind of appointment in question only for the Gram Panchayats in respect of which the petitioners have raised the dispute.
26. In light of aforementioned submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that already there is an existing directions to the respondents to lay down a common criteria for selection on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak to be made afresh, which is there in the judgment of Pawan Kumar (supra), and the respondents are under a legal obligation to work out a criteria, which shall, after giving appropriate weightage to the experience and merit as well as other eligibility conditions for the contractual post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak, shall be followed for the next round of recruitment. The sufficient directions are already existing in the judgment of Pawan Kumar (supra) regarding the same.
27. The limited issue of adjudication before this Court in the present dispute is that the petitioners are seeking redressal of consideration of their points regarding their experience, merit and 46 other issues by the respondents for considering them to be appointed as Gram Panchayat Sahayaks in their respective claimed Gram Panchayats, before the fresh rights are created by the new recruitment process or by extension / renewal of the existing contract. It is further made clear that this adjudication is only qua the petitioners who have approached this Court and shall operate only in respect of those Gram Panchayats where the dispute has been raised by the petitioners.
28. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions :-
(i) The respondents shall constitute a Committee comprising of CEO Zila Parishad concerned, DEO Elementary Education concerned, DEO Secondary Education concerned and BEEO concerned. The petitioners shall give fresh representations to such Committee constituted by the Zila Parishad. The Committee shall be required to operate with a quorum of at least two members of the aforesaid four members Committee, which have been suggested by the Additional Advocate General himself in the presence of the DEO Legal Elementary, Jodhpur.
(ii) The Committee shall make the necessary consideration of each dispute and pass specific orders with reasons to accept or deny the causes taken up by the petitioners in their representations.
(iii) If the grievances of the petitioners is affecting any third party then the Committee shall be required to give sufficient opportunity of hearing to the third party as well, before coming 47 to the conclusion regarding the dispute in question.
(iv) The respondents shall not conduct any fresh selection process for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak in the Gram Panchayats where the dispute has been raised by the petitioners, until a proper speaking order is passed upon the representation by the Committee.
(v) The respondents shall be at liberty to continue the contract of the existing Gram Panchayat Sahayaks strictly in accordance with law and as per the policy decision of the State Government, but on completion of the first term for the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks where the dispute has been raised by the petitioners, the extension / renewal of the contract shall not be granted until final orders upon the representations of the petitioners are passed.
(vi) The respondents, therefore, shall be required to hear all the parties concerned and affected, through their Committee a quorum of which has already been laid down by this Court with the assistance of the learned Additional Advocate General, and until the conclusion in the shape of speaking order is made by the Committee concerned, any further selection process in the Gram Panchayats regarding the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak concerned where the dispute has been raised by the petitioners, in particular, shall not be made.
(vii) This order shall not operate qua any person, who is not the petitioner before this Court, and for the Gram Panchayats where the disputes are already being resolved, as per the 48 earlier judgments, the authority shall be free to take appropriate legal recourse.
(viii) The respondents shall be required to complete this exercise as expeditiously as possible within the outer of limit of two months.
29. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Sudheer