Rajasthan High Court
Rajmal Meena S/O Mool Chand Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023/RJJP/002212]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2504/2023
Rajmal Meena S/o Mool Chand Meena, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Village-Rampuriya, Tehsil Atru, District Baran (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. District Collector, District Baran (Raj.)
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Baran (Raj.)
5. District Elementary Education Officer, (Mukhyala), District
Baran (Raj.)
6. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Senior
Secondary School, Kanotiya, Panchayat Samiti Atru,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
09/02/2023
1. This is a second round of litigation on behalf of petitioner-
Rajmal Meena, claiming appointment on the post of Gram
Panchayat Sahayak, Kanotiya pursuant to his selection by the
Gram Panchayat on 04.10.2017.
2. Earlier, petitioner filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.3597/2018
seeking similar prayer for appointment pursuant to decision of the
Gram Panchayat on 04.10.2017 and the said writ petition along
with other writ petitions came to be disposed of vide order dated
[2023/RJJP/002212] (2 of 3) [CW-2504/2023]
01.12.2018 and without passing any specific order for according
appointment to petitioner, petitioner was given liberty on his
prayer to submit a representation along with supporting
documents before the jurisdictional committee constituted in
terms of the judgment passed by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in
case of Malu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan in SB Civil Writ
Petition No.4374/2018, comprising of District Collector as
Chairman & Chief Executive and DEO as member.
3. It appears that petitioner submitted his representation and
the Committee vide order dated 11.02.2019 has dismissed the
representation of petitioner. The Committee in its order dated
11.02.2019 has recorded a fact finding that selection of petitioner
as Gram Panchayat Sahayak by the Gram Panchayat, was not
made after following the required procedures to undertake
interviews and therefore, the same is violative to the circular of
the State Government bearing No.15(1)/2017 dated 24.05.2017.
In the order dated 11.02.2019, the Committee has categorically
observed that the selection of petitioner was rightly decided to be
cancelled by the district level Committee.
4. Petitioner, by way of instant writ petition has challenged the
order of district level Committee dated 11.02.2019.
5. This Court finds that in the earlier filed writ petition, no
specific order to accord appointment to petitioner on the post of
Gram Panchayat Sahayak, pursuant to his selection dated
04.10.2017 by the Gram Pancahyat, was issued and on the
request of petitioner, he was allowed to submit representation.
The jurisdictional Committee duly constituted under orders of High
Court in case of Malu Ram (Supra) has dismissed the
[2023/RJJP/002212] (3 of 3) [CW-2504/2023]
representation with a clear fact finding as narrated hereinabove.
Petitioner did not challenge the order dated 11.02.2019 at that
point of time rather chose to prefer a contempt petition i.e. SB
Civil Contempt Petition No.723/2020. Obviously, the said contempt
petitioner was unwarranted, therefore, the same was dismissed
vide order dated 07.12.2022.
6. It is a trite law that mere selection of petitioner by the Gram
Panchayat does not confer any right to petitioner for appointment
and more so when that selection process itself has been found in
violation to the circular of the State Government dated
24.05.2017 and in the order dated 11.02.2019, the Committee
has clearly observed that the selection process was not in
accordance with the prescribed procedure of law, therefore, this
Court is of considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled to
claim appointment as of right.
7. Apart from above, the instant writ petition has been filed on
30.01.2023 challenging the order dated 11.02.2019, which too
confirms the earlier decision of cancellation of the selection
process by the district level Committee, but the order of district
level Committee has not been placed on record, therefore, for this
reason also, the instant writ petition is not liable to be succeed.
8. In view of aforesaid, the instant writ petition is devoid of
merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
9. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/10
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
