Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ajay Kumar Saini vs State Rural Develop An Panchayati Ors on 1 February, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 16455/2016
Ajay Kumar Saini S/o Shri Prahalad Singh Saini, Resident of Nr.
Somara Motors, Surajgarh Mor, Ward No. 19, Chirawa, Distt.
Jhunjhunu ----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To
The Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.
2. The Additional Program Coordinator Cum Chief Executive
Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu
3. The Block Development Officer Cum Program Officer,
Panchyat Samiti Surajgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Agnihotri, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 01/02/2019
1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition assails the order dated 01.12.2011 alongwith that of one other person namely Jaiprakash and prays that he should be allowed to continue to perform his duties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after terminating service of both the contractual employees, another contractual employee namely Jaiprakash was taken back in the year 2012 after he withdrew his writ petition while the petitioner was assured that he would be given appointment on contractual basis as and when vacancy arises. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have thereafter invited applications for (2 of 2) [CW-16455/2016] appointment on contract basis twice but the petitioner has not been given appointment.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner find that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Junior Technical Assistant on 07.06.2010 in the NREGA Project. Later on account of paucity of work the services were dispensed with vide order dated 01.12.2011, whereafter upto 2016 no appointments were made and no applications were invited. As has come on record from the reply filed by the respondents, 27 posts of Junior Technical Assistant were advertised on 07.09.2016, the petitioner participated in the selection process but was not selected. While it is true that a set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees but in the present case the said principle would not apply as after the petitioner's services were dispensed with in the year 2011, the need for fresh employment arose only in 2016 i.e. after a period of almost 5 years. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not considered and was not allowed to participate in the selection process for appointment, once he participates in the selection process, there is an equal level playing field for all candidates and if the petitioner has failed to make a grade, he cannot have any grievance and cannot claim that he should be given preference above others in a selection process merely because he had earlier worked as a contractual employee. Examining thus, I do not find any reason to interfere and the claim raised by the petitioner fails.
4. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J R.Vaishnav 137.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)