Sukh Mahindra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 10.09.2018, whereby, representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

The name of the petitioner was recommended by the SDMC for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak alongwith one Sunita Rani. However, the said appointment was not approved and, therefore, the petitioner alongwith several other petitioners, with various grievances qua appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak, filed writ petitions, which writ petitions were decided on 10.05.2018 led by Malu Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 4374/2018, wherein, petitioners were granted liberty to approach the respondents by way of representation and the respondents were directed to decide the same.

On a representation made by the petitioners, the same has been decided by the respondents by order dated 10.09.2018 (Annexure-8), wherein, after dealing with the entire procedure adopted for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak, it was concluded as under:-

"उपरोक्त तथ्यों से स्पष्ट है कि परिवेदना निस्तारण समिति द्वारा प्रथम चयन प्रक्रिया अवैध माने जाने के उपरान्त बिना पद रिक्त करवाये द्वितीय चयन प्रक्रिया अपनाई गई, जो प्रावधानों के विपरीत हैं एवं जिसका सक्षम स्तर से अनुमोदन भी नहीं हुआ है। तदोपरान्त प्रथम चयन प्रक्रिया के दौरान चयनित एक पद रिक्त होने पर तृतीय चयन प्रक्रिया अपनाई गई परन्तु तत्समय माननीय न्यायालय का स्थगन आदेष प्रभावी होने के कारण एवं चयन की प्रक्रिया बिना मानदण्ड अपनाये की गई है, जिसके अनुमोदन की अभिषंषा नहीं की जा सकती।

अतः उक्त दोनों चयनित अभ्यर्थियों को हटाये जाने एवं जिन-जिन आवेदकों द्वारा आलोच्य एसडीएमसी में आवेदन किया गया था, केवल उन्हीं आवेदकों में से नये सिरे से राज्य सरकार द्वारा पूर्व में जारी परिपत्रों के अनुसार शैक्षणिक/प्रषैक्षणिक योग्यता एवं अनुभव के मानदण्ड निर्धारित कर पुनः चयन प्रक्रिया अपनाये जाने की अभिषंषा की जाती है।"

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not justified in ordering for a fresh procedure to be adopted for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak, inasmuch as, the petitioner was qualified and his name was rightly recommended by the SDMC and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

The Committee appointed for the purpose, after thoroughly noticing the procedure adopted and finding various irregularities therein, came to the conclusion as noticed hereinbefore.

Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any perversity in the findings, as recorded, so as to require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view thereof, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.