Malu Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

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.

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.

By an appropriate writ,order or direction, the originalappointment 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.

The candidature of the petitioner may kindly beconsidered and he be appointed on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak â€" 2016.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction whichthis 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.â€​

For the purpose of the present adjudication, the facts are being gathered from the petitions collectively.

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.

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.

The respondents amended the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, while exercising the powers conferred by Section 102 of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No.13 of 1994).

The amended Rules were named as “The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016â€. 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 time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis, for Panchayat

Office.

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;jlSds.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/kriapk;r lfefr dk LFkkuh; fuoklh gksuk vko';d gSAâ€​

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 gSAâ€​

The selection process had to happen as per the following five conditions mentioned in the aforementioned circular dated 08.11.2016:

“p;au dh izfdz;k &

- xzke iapk;r lgk;dksa dk p;u lacf/kr xzke iapk;r dh xzke lHkk esafd;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= HkhlayXu fd;k tkuk vko';d gksxkA

- ,d fu/kkZfjr fnol ij leLr jkT; esa ,d lkFk xzke lHkkvksa dksvk;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.kZdj mlh fnu p;fur vkosndksa ds uke vuqeksnu gsrq lacf/kr eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh] ftyk

ifj""kn dks izsf""kr djus gksaxsA ftyk ifj""kn esa vxys dk;Z fnol ij eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh / vfr- eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh] lacf/kr iapk;r lfefr ds fodkl vf/kdkjh

rFkk ,d ys[kkf/kdkjh/ lgk;d ys[kkf/kdkjh dh lfefr lacf/kr iapk;r lfefr dh leLr xzke iapk;rksa esa gq, p;u dk vuqeksnu djsaxsA vuqeksnu ds i'pkr lacf/kr

xzke iapk;r }kjk vkns'k tkjh fd;s tk ldsaxsA lfefr }kjk vuqeksnu ugha fd;s tkus dh n'kk esa iqu% xzke lHkk vk;skftr dh tkdj u;s uke izLrkfor fd;s tkus dh

dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhAâ€​

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 â€" Chairman.

(ii) District Education Officer, Primary Education Second â€" Member.

(iii)District Education Officer, Secondary Education First â€" Member.

(iv) Concerned Block Primary Education Officer â€" Member Secretary.â€​

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.

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 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 therespondent- 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 areaccordingly.â€​

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:-

“(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.â€​

We are in complete agreement with the view taken bythe 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 year and the very object of implementing the scheme will be frustrated.

In that view of the matter, in the interest of over allpeople, 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.

However, this will not be treated as precedent.â€​

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 Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) & Other Connected matters as above, no direction to issue the appointment orders can be passed at this stage. The petitionersÂ

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.â€​

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 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.â€​

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 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 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.Â

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 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. â€​

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.

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 ofGram 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 petitionersshall be made at this stage, until May, 2018.

(iii) The respondents shall be free to scrutinize theeligibility, 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 suchconsideration, 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 PanchayatSahayaks 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 therespondents 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 alsodirects 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 asper 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 inRakesh Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), the respondents shall

be required to 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 beadopted 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 madeapplicable 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 Â

orders.â€​

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 notthe petitioner before this Court, and for the Gram Panchayats where the disputes are

already being resolved, as per the earlier judgments, the authority shall be free to take appropriate legal recourse.

(viii) The respondents shall be required to complete thisexercise as expeditiously as possible within the outer of limit of two months.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of.