Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jala Ram Siyag vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47779]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18051/2024
Jala Ram Siyag S/o Thana Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Siyago Ki Dhani, Nimalkot, Panchayat Samiti Adel, Tehsil Nokha,
District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Commissioner (Egs), Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Project Coordinator-Cum- District Collector,
Barmer.
4. The Additional Commissioner-Ii (Egc), Rural Development
And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Additional District Project Coordinator-Cum-Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, Rajasthan.
6. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sindhari,
District Barmer.
7. The Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Nehro
Ki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Sindhari, District Barmer.
8. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Nehro Ki Dhani,
Panchayat Samiti Sindhari, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/11/2025
1. The petition was filed with the grievance that his candidature
for contractual appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 12:37:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47779] (2 of 3) [CW-18051/2024]
was wrongly rejected by respondents despite the fact that he was
more meritorious than the other candidates.
2. It is not disputed that for the post in question was only on
contract basis but was only for one year. To that extent, the relief
sought by the petitioner is though rendered infructuous for the
year when the petitioner wanted to be appointed.
3. On the query being posed by this Court, the learned counsel
for the petitioner states that though the appointment was
contractual, at that time, but was contemplated for one year.
However, it is borne out that for subsequent years all those
candidates, who were appointed, have also been allowed to
continue on year to year basis. He also places reliance upon the
order passed in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State & Ors.:
SBCWP No.1704/2018, decided on 12.03.2018 and prays
that the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case
of the petitioner in light of the order passed in Pawan Kumar
(supra).
4. Being so, the writ petition is disposed of with the expectation
from the respondents that in case the petitioner are eligible to be
appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak/Panchayat Shikshak subject to
determination of their eligibility as well as the requirement of job
on any vacant post in question, on an application being submitted
by the petitioner, the same shall be entertained in accordance with
law. It shall also be considered as to why the petitioner's
candidature cannot be considered for contractual appointment
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 12:37:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47779] (3 of 3) [CW-18051/2024]
under the provisions of Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts
Rules, 2022.
5. It is made clear that in case such an application is filed by
the petitioner, the competent authority shall go through the same
in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of
Pawan Kumar Vs. State & Ors.: SBCWP No.1704/2018, decided on
12.03.2018, which is relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner and consider its applicability to the case of the
petitioners and accord the benefit thereof subject of course to
requirement of the service and availability of the vacancy as
stated hereinabove.
6. The writ petition as well as stay petition is accordingly
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
179-divya/-
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 12:37:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
