Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: "(i). The impugned order dated 03.10.2017 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent No.2 by which the services of the petitioner are being terminated, may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii). The respondents may kindly be directed to continue the services of the petitioner on the post of Panchayak Sahayak, Ramasani."
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the present controversy is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15837/2017 (Mani Lal Pandor v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) on 13.12.2017 . The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "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 parttime 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 not 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 not 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 fulfil 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."
(3.) In light of the afore-quoted judgment, the present writ petition is also dismissed in the same terms.;