Durgesh Kumari vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 296 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 296 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 15 January, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Durgesh Kumari vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors on 15 January, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                        (1 of 4)                     [CW-12265/2016]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12265/2016

Durgesh Kumari Wife of Ajay Kumar, aged about 30 years, R/o
Gram Kirti Nangla, Gram Panchayat Samleti, Panchayat Samiti
Mahuwa, District Dausa.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.        The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,
Panchayati    Raj      Department,          Government          of     Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The District Collector, Dausa.
3.      The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mahuwa,
District Dausa, Rajasthan,
4.           The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Samleti, Panchayat
Samiti Mahuwa District Dausa.
5.       Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Samleti, Panchayat Samiti
Mahuwa District Dausa.
6.       Children Development Project Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mahuwa, District Dausa.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priyanka Pareek, Addl.GC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment

15/01/2021

1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the

order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the Child Development Project

Officer, Mahuwa, District Dausa, whereby direction was issued to

the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mahuwa to

conduct a fresh selection after publication of the departmental

instructions dated 22.07.2015 extensively in the village so that

proper selection could be conducted.

(2 of 4) [CW-12265/2016]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner's selection was conducted as Sahayika but she was not

allowed to join and the impugned order dated 17.8.2016 has been

passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Mahuwa, District

Dausa at the behest of complaints made by other candidates who

did not get selection.

3. Per contra, reply has been filed by the State stating that

several complaints were received by the respondents from the

public of Village-Keerti Nangla and also on Rajasthan Sampark

Portal with regard to illegalities committed in the selections by the

Gram Sabha and, therefore, directions were issued to conduct a

fresh selection strictly in terms of the circular issued by the State

Government laying down the guidelines for selection. No objection

to the same can be made by a candidate who has no right of

appointment but only has a right of consideration. The petitioner's

candidature can always be considered afresh if she so applies.

4. I have considered the submissions.

5. The selections were conducted after issuing an

advertisement on 20.4.2016 by the Sarpanch and there were

several applications received as are available on record and

thereafter the petitioner was found to be possessing highest

percentage of marks as she was 12 th class pass while other

candidates were found to be lesser qualified and the Panchayat

Samiti, therefore, recommended name of the petitioner for

appointment as a Sahayika. No reasons are mentioned in the

order dated 17.8.2016 for cancellation of selection and direction

for fresh selection by the CDPO, Mahuwa, District Dausa. Any

selection process can be cancelled provided there is an allegation

of malpractice in a selection process. However, merely on the

(3 of 4) [CW-12265/2016]

basis of a complaint, a presumption cannot be drawn by CDPO of

malpractice and there should be a proper inquiry relating to the

same. The selection cannot be set aside only on surmises and

capriciousness of an officer. A right of consideration for

appointment is created once the person's name finds place in the

select list. The reply also does not reflect whether there was any

departure from the circular issued by the State Government by

the Panchayat Samiti for making selections in the circumstances.

The Apex Court in the case of East Coast Railway and Another

versus Mahadev Appa Rao and others, reported in (2010) 7

SCC 678, has held as under:-

"If a test is cancelled just because some complaints against the same have been made howsoever frivolous, it may lead to a situation where no selection process can be finalized as those who fail to qualify can always make a grievance against the test or its fairness. What is important is that once a complaint or representation is received the competent authority applies its mind to the same and records reasons why in its opinion it is necessary to cancel the examination in the interest of purity of the selection process or with a view to preventing injustice or prejudice to those who have appeared in the same. That is precisely what had happened in Dilbagh Singh's case (supra). The examination was cancelled upon an inquiry into the allegations of unjust, arbitrary and dubious selection list prepared by the Selection Board in which the allegations were found to be correct."

(4 of 4) [CW-12265/2016]

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order passed

by the Child Development Project Officer, Mahuwa, District Dausa

dated 17.08.2016 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be

considered for appointment on the post of 'Sahayika' and would be

also given all notional benefits.