Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Indrajeet vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:49508) on 17 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:49508]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 745/2025
Indrajeet S/o Tulchharam, Aged About 39 Years, Village And Post
Madasar, Tehsil Pokhran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati
Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. The Director, Elementary Education And Panchayati Raj
(Elementary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
5. Chief Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
6. Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Madasar,
Panchayat Samiti Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
7. The District Education Officer (Hq), Elementary Education,
Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/11/2025
1. The petition was filed with the grievance that his candidature
for contractual appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat
Sahayak was wrongly rejected by respondents despite the fact
that he was more meritorious than the other candidates.
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:13:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49508] (2 of 3) [CW-745/2025]
2. It is not disputed that the post in question was only on
contract basis and 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 Panchayat 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 under the provisions of Rajasthan
Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022.
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:13:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49508] (3 of 3) [CW-745/2025]
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
268-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:13:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
