PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy is covered by the judgment of Mani Lal Pando v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15837/2017) decided on 13.12.2017 , which reads as under:- "1. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12385/2017:- "(i)The impugned circular dated 15.9.2017 (Annex.9) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondents may be restrained to invite fresh application forms for the fresh recruitment process in pursuance of the circular Annex.9 dated 15.9.2017. (iii) The respondents may be directed to give appointment according to the merit to only those candidates who have already applied and given interview on the scheduled date. (iv) The respondent State Authorities may kindly be directed to give appointment as per their merit with all consequential benefits to the petitioner on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak in Gram Panchayat, Surpur, Panchayat Samiti Talwara, District Banswara. (v) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners." 2. Brief facts noticed by this Court are that the respondents amended the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, while exercising the powers conferred by Section 102 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No.13 of 1994). The amended Rules were named as "The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016". As per the amended Rules, the amendment of was made, particularly after the existing subrule (2) of Rule 258, new sub-rule (3) was added. Thus, the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak was created, on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis, for Panchayat Office. 3. For the execution of sub-rule (3) of Rule 258, the respondents came out with a circular dated 08.11.2016. The said circular laid down the service conditions of the persons to be selected as Gram Panchayat Sahayak. For the purpose of such selection, the eligibility criteria was as follows:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 4. Similarly for termination of any candidate, the following four conditions have been laid down in the said circular dated 08.11.2016:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 5. The selection process had to happen as per the following five conditions mentioned in the aforementioned circular dated 08.11.2016: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 6. The State Government further issued a circular dated 27.01.2017, in which the selection process was further clarified. The State Government further issued directions on 01.02.2017. Thus, the purport of the circulars was that as per the criteria, the concerned School Development and Management Committee (SDMC)/School Management Committee (SMC) was to select the candidates and make recommendation for their appointment, and thereafter, the selection of those candidates was supposed to be approved by a District Level Committee comprising of the following:- "(i) District Education Officer, Primary Education FirstChairman. (ii) District Education Officer, Primary Education SecondMember. (iii) District Education Officer, Secondary Education FirstMember. (iv) Concerned Block Primary Education OfficerMember Secretary." 7. The last Committee was having the powers to approve the selection process and pave the way for the requisite appointments. Some of the candidates were given appointments in pursuance of the recommendation of the SDMC/SMC; and some of the candidates though recommended, but were yet to be given appointments. 8. The petitioners are broadly aggrieved by the circular No. P.15(1)Prasi/2017 dated 15.9.2017 (Annex.15) issued by the State Government by which fresh applications are invited. The circular dated 15.9.2017 has set out the calendar for fresh exercise being conducted by the State of Rajasthan for rest of the Gram Panchayats where the Gram Panchayat Sahayak recruitment could be completed on account of disqualification of the recommended candidate by the concerned DLC. The relevant portion of the circular is as follows:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 9. Learned counsel for the parties have made the following submissions:- a. The respondents are opening the field of selection for all the candidates vide circular dated 15.9.2017, whereas the petitioners were already within the zone of consideration and they themselves ought to have been considered, thus, learned counsel for the petitioners have harped upon the issue to be resolved by fresh recruitment but with only the available candidates who have already applied in the previous selection process. b. The respondents were required to declare result for disqualification of the petitioners. c. The respondents were required to have a uniform criteria for making appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak across the State. d. The respondents were required to pass reasoned merit or disqualification for the persons who were selected in the previous exercise. e. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the respondents were required to treat Vidyarthi Mitra as ordinary candidate without giving them any exclusive preference. Counsel for the petitioners also sought information pertaining to Vidyarthi Mitra appointed on the said post. f. Learned counsel for the petitioner further raised an issue of the meritorious candidates among the petitioners being disqualified for no apparent reasons. 10. Thus, broadly the petitioners have challenged their disqualification from the earlier process conducted by the respective SDMC/SLC and the concerned DLC whereby posts have been left unfilled. As per counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are acting illegally by permitting the fresh candidates as it would create chaos and the persons who are already in the pipeline will get justice as they shall be facing open market competition, which they have already faced in the same appointment process and for the same Gram Panchayat. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also vehemently opposed the inclusion of fresh candidates in the same process as the earlier process was in continuity and if the petitioners who were merit-holders in the said process were permitted, then probably they would be the candidates who will get preference in the selection, thus, justice shall be done to them. On such argument being raised by counsel for the petitioners on earlier occasion also, this Court framed certain points for the respondents so as to file an additional affidavit pertaining to all these issues. An additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the questions framed with the assistance of learned counsel for petitioners have been answered by the respondents, which reads as follows:- "1. Whether any uniform criteria has been adopted by the SDMC/SMC/DLC/Chief Executive Officer for the purpose of fresh recruitment across the State. As regard query No.1, it is respectfully submitted that the State Government has provided guidelines relating to procedure and qualification for the purpose of recruitment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak. However, the criteria for selection of Gram Panchayat Sahayak has been left to the discretion of the individual SDMC/SMC on the basis of interview of the candidate concern. 2. Whether the disqualification of SDMC approved/recommended candidates by DLC was appropriately considered before ousting them. As regard query no.2, it is respectfully submitted that before ousting the candidates approved and recommended by SDMC, the DLC has duly considered and recorded reason/s for ousting the candidate concern. 3. Whether new process will include fresh candidates or shall be conducted amongst the candidates who had already applied. As regard query No.3, it is respectfully submitted that in the new process of selection, fresh candidates will be included in the process so as to ensure compliance of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The candidates who already applied will also have to apply afresh to be included in the process of selections. 4. The affidavit shall also clarify as to condition No.12 of the circular dated 01.02.2017 as to whether the same does stipulate for the same set of candidates to be reconsidered for the purpose of fresh recruitment which is likely to be conducted only for the remaining Panchayats where the selections have already been approved or completed. As regard query No.4, as respectfully submitted in response to query No.3, it is also most respectfully that in the new process of selection, the same set of candidates, if they apply, as well as candidature of new applicants will be considered. Thus, condition No.12 of the circular dated 1.2.2017 may be read to the abovesaid effect. 5. The affidavit shall also contain the broader reason as to why DLC disapproved the candidates approved by the SDMC. The affidavit shall also contain the stand of the respondents so as to when they proposed to re-initiate the process of filling vacant posts. As regards query No.5, it is respectfully submitted that the District Level Committee disapproved the candidates approved by the School Development and Management Committee on the various grounds which are duly recorded in the proceeding/s of the DLC. However, the broader reason for disapproving the candidates by the DLC may be defined as (I) favourism; (ii) nepotism (iii) violation of guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time. 6. The respondents shall also provide all the state wise figures of selected candidates as available to them. In case, they have information regarding the selected candidates who have been Vidhyarathi Mitra, the same shall also be provided. As regards query No.6, it is respectfully submitted that the State wise, there are 9893 Gram Panchayats and out of the aforesaid 9893 Gram Panchayats, process of selection of Gram Panchayat Sahayak has been completed in the 6995 Gram Panchayats, wherein, 19687 Gram Panchayat Sahayaks have been approved by the Chief Executive Officer concern. However, answering the respondents are in a position to clarify the number of Vidhyarthi Mitras amongst them. 7. Whether any preference is being given to Vidhyarthi Mitra in the said appointments and if yes, then what is the purview of such preference. As regards query No.7, it is respectfully submitted that in the matter of appointment of Gram Panchayat Sahayak, State Government has provided any instruction to give preference to the candidates having experience of working on the post of Vidhyarthi Mitra." 12. Thus, the learned Additional Advocate General has categorically come out with the stand that recruitment shall be done strictly in accordance with the previous circulars issued by respondents and finally the circular dated 15.9.2017 shall govern the field. Learned Additional Advocate General further stated that the criteria for appointment to the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak has been left at the discretion of the individual SDMC/SMC on the basis of interview of the candidate concerned and the State is making any condition as the candidates have to be appointed for local needs and as per the local conditions for which SDMC are competent bodies. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that all the candidates of Gram Panchayat Sahayak for which recruitment exercise took place which was properly taken up by the SDMC and DLC and considered before making any appointment or making any ouster of the candidate concerned. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General has reiterated that for the Gram Panchayats where the exercise of selection of Gram Panchayat Sahayak could be completed or the exercise resulted into disqualification of selected candidates, the respondents are bound to make fresh exercise by opening the doors afresh for all the candidates in light of circular dated 15.9.2017. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General has justified the reason for opening fresh exercise on the ground that since it will be a fresh selection process, the consideration has to be made so that maximum persons should be given opportunity who approach the respondents for being appointed as per the criteria already stipulated. 16. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the apprehension of giving appointment to any Vidyarthi Mitra candidates was based on any sound information and in fact, the respondents are having categoric information that no such extra ordinary preference has been directed to be given for the purpose of giving preference to Vidyarthi Mitras. 17. Learned Additional Advocate General has also stated that broadly the criteria of disposal of proceedings of appointment was done with an eye of allegation of favouratism, nepotism and violation of guidelines issued by the State Government against the petitioners and other unsuccessful candidates. 18. Learned Additional Advocate General has stated that the selections have been completed in substantial number of Gram Panchayats i.e. 6995 whereas for rest of the part of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks i.e. 19687 have been approved to be appointed by the Executive Officer concerned in the fresh exercise. 19. Learned Additional Advocate General has justified the circular dated 15.9.2017 stating that the said circular is totally in accordance with law and is changing the criteria. Where selections have to be made only in those Gram Panchayat Sahayak where the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks were appointed even after completion of the proceedings. New process have been initiated as per the conditions which were previously existing, the respondents shall make such exercise and shall complete the same as per the calender issued, however, the dates shall be subject to change as per administrative exigency. 20. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing record of case alongwith affidavit and circulars, which are there on record, this Court is of the opinion that the selection of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks was in accordance with the amendment in Rules of 1996, particularly, Rule 258 sub-rule(iii), which was Amendment Act no.13 of 1994 which amended Rules namely Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Second Amendment Rules, 2016. From a bare reading of Rule, it is clear that for administration of Gram Panchayat a post has been created and the same shall be for part-time for a limited contract period. This Court has also seen circulars which have been issued from time to time prescribing eligibility criteria and the law laid down in other service conditions for recruitment, particularly, the circular which lay down parameters on which respective local bodies have to conduct recruitment, which is to be finally approved by the School Development and Managing Committee of the respective Panchayats and finally approved by the District Level Committee constituted by the respondents. The petitioners who participated in the aforementioned exercise could qualify and were disqualified at SDMC/DLC level leaving the exercise of completion of appointment of Gram Panchayat Sahayak incomplete in number of Panchayats. State counsel has stated that there were 9893 Gram Panchayats for whom appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak were to be conducted, however, the exercise resulted into appointment of 19687 Gram Panchayat Sahayaks. The petitioners on such non-completion have approached this Court mainly aggrieved by opening of process by the new circular dated 15.9.2017 as the petitioners do wish to participate again in the same process even when the post is a part-time contractual and for limited period. This Court is of the opinion that such posts which are being filled as per Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 are contractual posts and discretion has been given to the concerned Gram Panchayats and the local bodies and local authority to complete the selection process by giving broader guidelines in the preceding selection process. The respondents cannot be bound in the recruitment process in such a way that contractual appointments shall have to meet the rigor of regular selection process exercise. The application preferred by the complainant candidates on the basis of which ouster of the present writ petitioners has happened are made party in the present petition. This Court finds that the circulars have broadly given parameters for selections including basic qualifications and basic guidelines prescribing criteria for making selection while leaving the final selections to SDC/DLC local level so that need of the Panchayat is kept in mind while making such appointment, which is of paramount consideration in the given set of circumstance where requirement of such person is only for fulfilling the duties which may vary from place to place and Panchayat to Panchayat. This Court has also interfered in the selection process in the matter of Subhash Chandra while binding the respondents to secure the appointed candidates by not ousting them without giving any opportunity of hearing and the ousted candidates have been reasonably protected by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the matter of Sunita Sharma, whereby the ousted candidates have to give their representations before the Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Court and such Committee is also in existence. Thus, a complete redressal system for the persons ousted as well in the persons approved/appointed is in place by virtue of both the judgment referred. The respondents themselves were cautious that these are contractual appointments and any delay would cause the complete exercise to be frustrated. On a bare reading of circular dated 15.9.2017, the same is justified as it only calls for compliance of the earlier circulars and open a fresh selection process for the Gram Panchayats where the selection could not be completed in the earlier selection exercise. In light of the affidavit filed by the State, it is clear that the exercise shall be conducted by a particular criteria to be decided by local SDMC and, thus, it shall fulfill the requirements of the local bodies. As such, the ouster of the candidates is always an outcome in any selection exercise and it shall be in huge numbers but in such contractual appointments they cannot be communicated reasons for their ouster. No indulgence can be granted to them by this Court as factual matrix of each case is different. As far as inclusion of fresh candidates is concerned, the same is done by the respondents only where earlier selection process did not culminate into final selection and thus opening the same would be justified in light of the basic parameters of the law. It is expected that SDMC and DLC shall act in accordance with law by maintaining maximum transparency in the selection process which shall be in accordance with the circular dated 15.9.2017. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petitions are dismissed and no interference is called for in the conditions of the circular dated 15.9.2017 or selection exercise of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks for the remaining Gram Panchayat where the same could not be completed on the earlier occasion. "
(2.) In light of the afore-quoted judgment, this writ petition is dismissed in the same terms.;