Rajasthan High Court
Ranjeet Singh And Ors vs State Panchayati Raj Ors on 19 July, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17301/2017
1. Ranjeet Singh Son Of Sh. Deva Ram, Resident Of Vill/post
Bhunwala Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar, Raj.
2. Harphool Singh Son Of Sh. Luna Ram, Resident Of Vill.
Shastri Nagar Post Jheegar Chhoti Tehsil Dhod, District
Sikar, Raj.
3. Mahendra Kumar Bijarnia Son Of Sh. Surja Ram Bijarnia,
Resident Of Vill/post Netarwas Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar,
Raj.
4. Gopal Singh Dhaka Son Of Sh. Rekha Ram Dhaka,
Resident Of Vill/post Netarwas Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar,
Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar.
3. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sikar.
4. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Dhod, Sikar, Raj.
5. Government Adrash Sr. Secondary School, Dhod Through
Its Principal.
6. Government Adrash Sr. Secondary School, Sanwaloda
Purohitan Through Its Principal.
7. Government Adrash Sr. Secondary School, Netarwas
Through Its Principal.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
19/07/2022
With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard
finally.
(2 of 4) [CW-17301/2017]
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayer:-
"It is therefore most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to allow this writ
petition in the interest of justice and ;
1) by an appropriate writ, order or
direction the impugned
order/advertisement dated 15.09.2017
may kindly be quashed and set aside and
the respondents may further be restrained
to call for fresh applications for the post of
gram panchayat sahayak in Gram
Panchayat Dhod, Sanwloda purohitan &
Netarwas panchayat samiti Dhod District
Sikar.
2) by an appropriate writ, order or
direction the authority be directed to call
for interview the candidates from the
earlier list only.
3) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court
consider expedient, just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case may
kindly be granted in favor of the petitioner;
and
4) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be
awarded in favor of the humble petitioner."
In pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.09.2017, the
petitioners applied for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak. Being
unsuccessful in the selection process, the petitioners have filed the
present writ petition challenging the criteria of selection.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the identical writ
petition has been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this court
vide order dated 16.12.2019 in the matter of Dileep Kumar
Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.16977/2017) wherein it has been held as under:-
"The matter comes up on an
application under Article 226(3) of the
Constitution of India for vacating interim
order passed by this court dated
3.10.2017.
Learned counsel appearing for the
applicant(s) submits that the petitioners
(3 of 4) [CW-17301/2017]
allowed vide aforesaid order to participate
in the selection process and after having
participated in the selection process, some
of the petitioners have already been
selected while others have not been able
to get selected. The applicants on the
other hand submits that those who have
been selected however as this court has
restrained the respondent(s) from making
appointment, the applicants have been
denied appointment in terms of the interim
order passed by this court.
Learned counsel further submits that
interim order passed by this court, in writ
petition and orders passed in several other
writ petitions jointly in all the writ
petitions, the interim order stands vacated
as writ petitions itself disposed of and
finalized. In all the cases, selection
process is over, and other persons have
already been given appointments, who
have been selected but on account of
present case being pending, the applicants
have been denied appointment. Learned
counsel further submits that those
petitioners in the present writ petition who
were selected have withdrawn their writ
petition as they have been given
appointment.
I have considered the submissions.
Petitioners originally appeared before
filing of this writ petition challenging their
non consideration for the post of Panchayt
Sahayak on the ground of eligibility. This
court had directed them to be considered
and they have already participated in the
selection process but they have remained
unsuccessful. The present application has
been moved by those who have remained
successful in the selection process but on
account of pendency of this writ petition,
the appointment have not been offered to
them.
In my considered view, those
candidates/petitioners who have remained
unsuccessful, for them the issue has
become fully academic. None of them has
challenged the result wherein they have
been declared unsuccessful.
In view thereof, the writ petition has
been rendered infructuous on account of
petitioners having been unsuccessful in the
selection process. The interim order
therefore also become redundant so far as
petitioners are concerned.
(4 of 4) [CW-17301/2017]
In view of the above, the writ
petition is dismissed as having become
infructuous. Interim order passed by this
court is also vacated.
All the pending applications stand
disposed of.
The respondents shall now proceed
with the appointment of those Panchayat
Sahayak who have already been selected."
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed in
view of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court
in the matter of Dileep Kumar Sharma & Ors. (supra).
All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /47
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
