Pawan Kumar @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:

a. The impugned order dated 31.01.2018 annex P/9 qua the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed

to allow the petitioner to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak in Village Sherda with all consequential benefits.

b. Any other appropriate writ, order or directionwhich this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances in the case.

c. Writ petition filed by the Petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.â€​

Marginal variation in the contextual facts notwithstanding, the legal issues raised herein are the same, permitting analogous disposal of the writ

petitions in hand.

For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts of the leading case i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1704 / 2018 (Pawan Kumar Vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) are being taken, which are as follows.

The petitioner has passed the secondary school examination in the year 2002 and the senior secondary school examination in the year 2004.

Thereafter, the petitioner has passed the B.A. Examination in the year of 2008. The petitioner is also having the qualification of B.Ed. which he has

acquired in the year of 2010. He is also having the qualification of RSCIT which he has acquired on 01.06.2013.

The petitioner is also having the experience of working as computer operator of almost seven years. The experience certificate has been issued for

the aforesaid period by the Zila Parishad as well as by the Panchayat Samiti concerned on 24.04.2013 and 15.02.2017.

The respondent department introduced an amendment under the Panchayati Raj Rules and has incorporated Sub Rule 3 under Rule 258 by making

the following amendment on 02.11.2016.Â

 “(3) Panchayat may appoint any person as Gram Panchayat Sahayak, on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis, for Panchayat

Office or for any other work with prior permission of the Chief Executive Officer. He shall be paid from the grant received for the purpose from the

State Government on recommendation of the State Finance Commission or out of own income of the Panchayat.â€​

By the aforesaid amendment, the power has been given to the Panchayat to appoint any person as Gram Panchayat Sahayak on part time or on fixed

honorarium or on contract basis for the help in the Panchayat Office.

Thereafter the circular was issued on 08.11.2016 by the Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department issuing directions with regard to appointments

on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak. As per that, candidate seeking appointment for the aforesaid post should have the qualification of senior

secondary and should have been a permanent resident of the concerned Panchayat Samiti of the Gram Panchayat under which the selection is being

made. Thereafter the procedure has been prescribed as to how the selection will be made. In the aforesaid circular, the proposed posts in every Gram

Panchayat have also been referred in appendix-I attached to that circular. As per that, for the District Hanumangarh, two posts have been given for

every Gram Panchayat.

Thereafter on 27.01.2017, another circular was issued with regard to supplement the guidelines issued on 08.11.2016. As per which, it was

prescribed that the selection will be made by the School Development and Management Committee (SDMC)/School Management Committee (SMC).

Thereafter again on 01.02.2017 the guidelines were issued by the Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department by adding certain more guidelines in

the earlier circular. As per the circular dated 01.02.2017, it has been prescribed that the meeting of the executive committee of the SDMC would be

taken place on 17.02.2017 at 10.00 a.m. in the entire State of Rajasthan. In that, it has been prescribed that the Gram Sewak will be called from Gram

Panchayat also as special invited members. In the guidelines dated 27.01.2017 in appendix -D, it has been prescribed that the candidates would also

submit the experience certificates along with the other documents. It has also been prescribed in clause IV of the circular dated 27.01.2017 that the

selection will be made after interview and after examining the documents. It has also been prescribed that on the day of interview the candidate is

required to remain present before the committee. The another order was issued on 08.02.2017 whereby an amendment was made and an additional

condition was incorporated in order dated 01.02.2017 with regard to age of a candidate by prescribing that the same should not be less than 21 years.

Each SDMC was free to make its own criteria for assessing the merit of the candidates concerned.

As per the aforesaid circulars the meeting of SDMC was took place On 17.02.2017, in which a decision was taken to consider 80% marks of

senior secondary, one mark for graduation, one mark for post graduation, two marks of BSTC/B.Ed., one mark for computer diploma and 15 marks

for experience certificate maximum of three years for determination of the merit. On that basis, the merit list was prepared and the petitioner was

found selected and his name was recommended for appointment.

Certain complaints were made by the non selected candidates for that a committee was constituted as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court of

three members. The aforesaid committee without calling the petitioner, directly reached a conclusion that in place of the petitioner fresh selection is

recommended. In the letter dated 27.07.2017, the name of the petitioner has been shown at serial No.64.

Therefore, on 15.09.2017 an order was issued by the Secretary of the Education Department whereby the calendar has been issued with regard to

conduct the selection process for the remaining posts in which the Gram Panchayat Sahayak have not been selected. Thereafter on 20.09.2017 the

Director of the Secondary Education, Rajasthan issued an order by directing all the Districts Education officers to make the compliance of the order

dated 15.09.2017.

As per circular dated 15.09.2017, in the respondent gram panchayat also the fresh selection was introduced without terminating the services of the

petitioner by letter dated 27.09.2017. Against the aforesaid automatic termination from the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak, the petitioner filed the

writ petition being SBCWP No.12317/2017. The aforesaid writ petitions have been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 27.11.2017 by quashing

the automatic termination of the petitioner. The aforesaid writ petition has been allowed with the directions that the respondents would be free to pass

fresh order after indicating the reason in the notice and thereafter on a consideration of the claim of the petitioner, may pass a fresh order as per the

principles of natural justice.

Pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2017, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.01.2018 by the District Education Officer without giving any

reason of objection. The notice was with regard to appearing before the committee on 13.01.2018 for personal hearing. The petitioner appeared

before the committee concerned on the given date and filed the reply that appointment of the petitioner is in accordance with law and has made after

following due process.

So far as the experience certificate of the petitioner is concerned, that was questioned on the ground that the same is issued by an authority of

Tehsil level. The petitioner also filed writ petition No.374/2018 to consider his experience in the selection process as valid. The aforesaid writ petition

was decided on 08.01.2018 directing the respondents that the experience of the petitioner be considered by the SDMC. The aforesaid judgment was

also made available before the district level committee on 13.01.2018.

To lay foundation of the present adjudication, it is also pertinent to note the facts pertaining to the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak.

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 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that when the services of the petitioners were terminated, they approached this Court by way

of filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 12299 / 2017 (Subhash Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 27.11.2017), and while deciding the

said writ petition alongwith other analogous matters, their services were protected.

The relevant portion of the judgment rendered by this Court in Subhash Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) reads as under:-

“42. This Court takes note of the fact that all the impugned orders, including the fresh circular dated 15.09.2017 and the termination orders, which

have been passed, are not only cryptic and one sided, but also amount to travesty of justice for the persons, who have already been

selected/appointed. The termination order clearly reflects only one sided consideration, whereby the persons, who were not approved/selected gave

representations, and their verbatim version has been reproduced in the termination order, without any application of mind or without going into the fact

that the petitioners themselves have a valuable right to rebut the facts mentioned in such representation.

The respondents have initiated the process for rest of the Gram Panchayats, where the dispute arose out of the decisions taken by the

SDMC/SMC and District Level Committee and have passed the circular dated 15.09.2017. Thus, the irresponsible conclusion has been made by the

respondentsauthorities regarding the disputes in respect of approval/appointment, by holding the approvals for selection/appointment bad, even without

giving the minimum required opportunity of hearing or any kind of notice to the petitioners. The petitioners, if at all, had committed any wrong, then

also, they should have been given at least one proper opportunity of hearing, to rebut the facts mentioned in the representation of the ousted

candidates, so as to defend their appointment/selection.

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€​

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that after passing of the aforequoted order, the petitioners were given a commonly worded

notice dated 04.01.2018, relevant portion of which reads as under:-

“egksn;] mi;qZDr fo""k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd xzke iapk;r lgk;d ds p;u ds Leca/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj esa nk;j ,l ch flfoy fjV la[;k

12299@2017 lqHkk""kpUnz cuke jkt- jkT; o vU; fofHkUu ;kfpdkvksa esa fnukad 27-11-2017 dks ikfjr fu.kZ;kuqlkj ;kphx.k dks uksfVl }kjk lwpuk nsdj

leqfpr lquokbZ dk volj iznku djus dh dk;Zokgh gsrq funsZ’k iznku fd;s x;s gSA vr% funsZ’kksa dh ikyuk esa vkidks tfj;s jftLVMZ uksfVl

lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki fnukad 13-1-18 dks izkr% 10-00 cts ftyk vH;kosnu lfefr guqekuxf’k{kk guqekuxfu/kkZfjr frfFk@ le; ij mifLFkr ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa lfefr }kjk vkidks LoSPNk ls vuqifLFkr ekurs gq, ,d rjQk dk;Zokgh dj nh tkosxh] ftldk leLr

mRrjnkf;Ro vki Lo;a dk gksxkA lwfpr jgsA

                                                 ,l-

Mh                                            ftyk f’k{kk

vf/kdkjh                                   izkjfEHkd f’k{kk ,oa lnL; lfpo

ftyk                                          vH;kosnu fuLrkj.k

lfefr                                          (izk- ia- lgk- HkrhZ )guqekux26. The petitioners preferred their respective representation, but their services have been terminated by passing a cryptic order without any impression

of consideration or application of mind.

Learned counsel for the petitioners state that the notice was common for all candidates and the claim also has been decided commonly by the

respondents by passing a common order, as per the recommendation of the Committee in question.

This Court, while seeking response of the respondents, passed the order on 19.02.2018, which reads as under:-

“Mr.Vikas Choudhary, Assistant to Additional Advocate General, shall be required to submit before this Court as to the exact period of this

appointment which the government proposes; and whether there shall be fresh recruitment after the period of over or the government shall continue

the same persons. List the matter on 27.02.2018.â€​

In response to the aforequoted order dated 19.02.2018, the respondents have given the following answers:-

 “1- iapk;rh jkt foHkkx ds ifji= dzekad ,Q- 4 () MTV@fof/k@ijkfo@2016@832 fnukad 08-11-2016 ,oa fnukad 27-01-2017 ds dze esa Ldwy

f’kk{kk foHkkx }kjk i= fnukad 01-02-2017 }kjk fn’kk funsZ’k tkjh dj xzke iapk;rksa esa 6000/- :i;s izfrekg ds fu;r ekuns; ij iw.Azr;k

vLFkk;h vk/kkj ij 1 o""kZ gsrq xzke iapk;r lgk;d yxk;s x;s gSA

2- xzke iapk;r lgk;dksa dh mDr vof/k esa o`f} gsrq izLrko iapk;r jkt foHkkx esa izfdz;k/khu gSA ;fn iapk;rh jkt foHkkx }kjk ,d o""kZ dh vof/k dks ctkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS rks orZeku esa yxs gq;s xzke iapk;r lgk;dksa dh 1 o""kZ dh vof/k esa larks""ktud dk;Z ds vk/kkj ij o`f} dh tk ldsxhA ftudk

dk;Z larks""ktud ugha ik;k tkrk gS muds LFkku ij u;s xzke iapk;r lgk;d yxk;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhAâ€​

Learned counsel for the petitioners have shown to this Court the order of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Rakesh

Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.757/2017 decided on 22.05.2017), relevant portion of which reads as

under:-

“5. Before proceeding with the matter, it would not out of place mention that the State Government framed the scheme to provide special fund

under the Finance Commission to meet with the requirement of the local Gram Panchayat and the very object is to give special finance under the

Finance Commission. However, with a view to regulate the non-user of arbitrary power at local level with a view to control indirectly, they have

incorporated the Rules otherwise they could have notified a contract at the local level.

In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judgewhile 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 laid down. More so, when the selections are to be made on a particular date

alone for all the panchayats and a candidate can only apply at a particular panchayat for the purpose of appointment for the post of Gram Panchayat

Sahayak. This is so considering that there are linguistic regions in Rajasthan and the purpose for appointment of Gram Panchayat Sahayak is

exclusively for that particular Gram Panchayat to help in the regular day to day working of Gram Panchayat for which a funding is being done at the

level of State Finance Commission to the Gram Panchayat so that there may be a proper utilization of the funds. A post has been created at the

particular Gram Panchayat and thus the decision to allow a candidate to apply in his own residential area is rational and has a purpose sought to be

achieved and on that count, therefore, the guidelines which have been issued cannot be said to be invalid.â€​

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

In that view of the matter, in the interest of overall 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.

Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. The same is dismissed.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioners have also shown to this Court the adjudication made by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Anita

Vishnoi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.30/2018 decided on 23.02.2018), whereby the appeal was dismissed as

having become infructuous, as the appointment had been given to the concerned persons. The said order dated 23.02.2018 reads as under:-

“During the pendency of this special appeal representation was filed by the appellants which has already been accepted by District Education

Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer vide order dated 20.02.2018.

In view of above, the instant special appeal is become infructuous. However, the respondents are directed to issue appointment order in compliance of

the said order.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents has however, justified the impugned orders on the ground that proper application of mind has been made by

the respondents and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing, in terms of the earlier judgment rendered by this Court in Subhash Chander Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), and thereafter, the Committee gave notice to each of the petitioners and after taking their respective stand on

record, the necessary orders were passed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds, at the first instance, that the impugned

orders do not reflect proper application of mind.

On traversing through the facts of the leading case i.e. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1704/2018 (Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), it is

writ large that without following the direction issued in the earlier writ petition on 27.11.2017, by a non-speaking order, the appointment of the

petitioner has been rejected by order dated 31.01.2018. In the aforesaid order, the name of the petitioner has been shown at serial No.17 and in the

last column it has been mentioned that as per the earlier report dated 27.07.2017 his appointment can be cancelled. No reason has been indicated as to

why his appointment has been cancelled. Therefore, the aforesaid order is against the principles of natural justice.

This Court further finds, on a perusal of the facts pleading in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1704/2018, that the order of termination in that case is on

account of the fact that the experience certificate was not issued by the authorized person, whereas on the merits, petitioner Pawan Kumar has

secured 72.53% marks, and even if the experience marks to the extent of 15 marks are reduced, then also petitioner Pawan Kumar shall be above the

complainant, as the complainant has secured 46% marks.

This Court also finds that the opportunity of hearing, as stipulated in the judgment of Subhash Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), has

been merely an exercise of eye wash and cryptic orders, which were passed in a particular manner, do not do justice to the persons, who were eligible

and stood appointed by the respondents, after undergoing the regular selection process, in accordance with the criteria laid down by their respective

SDMCs.

The respondents have not been able to point out the gravity of the reasons for which an appointed person needs to be terminated and fresh

selection process needs to be initiated.

This Court, while deciding the earlier case of Subhash Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), had expected that the petitioners shall be

given the satisfaction of being heard before taken any decision adverse to their interest.

This Court had stayed the termination of the petitioners’ services, at the first instance itself, as the termination seemed to be without proper

application of mind.

This Court has also seen the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Rakesh Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(supra) by lauding the objection and refusing to interfere in the process at this stage. The Hon’ble Division Bench, in the said judgment, has

already held that the scheme is only for a period of one year, and after one year, which is going to culminate into an end very soon, the respondents

shall be undertaking the exercise afresh or shall scrutinize the candidates on the basis of their performance for continuation, as responded by them.

Since the Hon’ble Division Bench, in the aforesaid judgment, has already taken a view of not disturbing the appointments at this stage, it was

incumbent upon the respondents to have taken care of such observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench, and if at all any demerit or

underperformance or ineligibility was reflected, then the tenure of one year, which is shortly coming to an end, could have become a juncture where

the respondents could have taken the necessary decision.

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 of GramPanchayat 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 bemade at this stage, until May, 2018.

(iii) The respondents shall be free to scrutinize the eligibility, meritand 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, befree 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 Sahayaksfor 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 respondentsto 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 directsthe 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 therequirement 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 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 adoptedby 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 applicablein 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 nonapplication of mind is reflected from the impugned orders.