1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8884/2008. Man Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7654/2008. Mohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 10.7.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Hauman Choudhary for the petitioner in SBCWP No.8884/08. Mr. Deendayal Khandelwal for petitioner in SBCWP No.7654/08. Mr. S. D.Khaspuria with Mr. L. N. Boss, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners against show cause notice dated 14.7.2008 and orders of Government dated 5.8.2008 and 6.8.2008 by which the respondent entitled to terminate engagement of petitioners as Assistant Secretary cum Employment Assistant at Gram Panchayat Sunhera, Panchayat Samiti Kaman, District Bharatpur. 2 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner- Man Chand is that petitioner was rightly appointed because of his own merit and that he is also resident of Gram Panchayat, Sunhera. The direction issued by Collector that Rajpal should be appointed in preference to petitioner cannot be accepted. It is, therefore, prayed that writ petition be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mohar Singh submitted that Man Chand was not actually top in the merit list and selection was not correctly held, therefore, his appointment order be discontinued and fresh selection be held. 5. Learned Additional Government Counsel opposed both the writ petitions and submitted that appointment of Man Chand was erroneously made and this fact was revealed when District Programme Coordinator, Bharatpur on receiving objections made the matter examined through a Committee, which reported that Rajpal was more meritorious than the petitioner-Man Chand. It was thereafter revised the merit list in which Rajpal figured at Serial No.1. Copy of the order issued by District Programme Coordinator, Bharatpur dated 3 30.3.2008 and the revised merit list thereafter issued produced on record in reply to writ petition. 6. Perusal of contract agreement indicates that period for which petitioner was engaged started from 31.3.2008, but it ended on 31.3.2009. Petitioner has, therefore, continued on the basis of interim order passed by this Court. But at the same time, the enquiry initiated by respondents themselves proved the fact that initial selection was not correctly made and, therefore, in the midst of contractual period, fresh and revised merit list had to be issued. 7. Having regard to the facts of the case, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to now hold fresh selection after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners. The writ petitions are disposed of with direction to District Programme Coordinator, Bharatpur to hold fresh selection within a period of one month. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.36 & 37.