1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7491/2002. : : Mohan Lal Sain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 9.7.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Tarun Choudhary for Mr.Hanuman Choudhary for the petitioner. Ms.Sweety Mishra for Mr.Ashok Gaur for the respondent. Mr.Aladeen Khan, Dy.Govt.Counsel, for the State. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Mohal Lal challenging the order passed by the District Collector, Alwar dated 27.9.2002. The District Collector in that order allowed the representation of Hansraj Meena- respondent No.5 and terminated services of the petitioner as Shiksh Sahayogi, Gram Panchayat Kaneti holding that the respondent No.5 was entitled to such appointment in place of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.5.2001. Shri Tarun Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was duly selected as Shiksha Sahayogi, Gram Panchayat, Kaneti on 20.5.2001 and he has after completing training of one month joined services 2 on 3.7.2001 pursuant to his appointment order dated 30.5.2001. His services could not be abruptly terminated 15 months thereafter. It is further argued that Hansraj Meena had no locus standi to challenge his appointment before the District Collector, Alwar. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that District Collector, Alwar did not provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order dated 27.9.2002, even though the order was to the effect that selection of the petitioner as Shiksha Sahayogi was liable to be cancelled and that the candidature of the respondent No.5 treating him to be eligible should be considered for fresh appointment and the matter was remanded back for fresh appointment to the Panchayat Samiti. Learned counsel argued that the District Collector passed the aforesaid order merely upon hearing the respondent No.5 and the Block Elementary Education Officer and on perusal of the record. The petitioner was neither served with any notice nor was provided an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was selected by Parivedana Samiti on 24.5.2001 and he was issued appointment on 30.5.2001 and thereafter he completed the training from 3.6.2001 to 30.6.200. He then joined his duties 3 on 3.7.2001. The District Collector passed the aforesaid order on 4.9.2002 after 15 days of his date of appointment. He had to approach the Prativedana Samiti against rejection of application form because Gram Panchayat rejected his application form on the premise that out sider candidate who is not native of the same Gram Panchayat cannot be considered. Learned counsel argued that condition that local candidate would be eligible for appointment has been subsequently held to be illegal and the Government deleted such condition. The District Collector, therefore, could not consider the candidature of the respondent No.5 alone and ignore that of the petitioner. Ms.Sweety Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner being candidate of OBC, he could not be considered as post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kaneti was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Application of the respondent No.5 was rejected illegally by the Gram Panchayat considering him to be over age. The respondent No.5 was a candidate of Scheduled Tribe, therefore, entitled to relaxation of five years as per the government rules. The petitioner was an out-sider, therefore, his case was wrongly considered by 4 the Gram Panchayat as per the instruction of the Parivedna Samiti. It was denied that the petitioner was not provided opportunity of hearing. The District Collector considered the arguments and also relevant record was considered. Mr.Aladeen Khan, learned Deputy Govt.Counsel has argued that the opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and the District Collector rightly while setting aside the selection of petitioner remanded the matter back to the Parivedna Samiti to re-consider the matter treating the respondent No.5 as eligible candidate. It was argued that the Block Elementary Education Officer vide order dated 8.10.2002 thereafter appointed the respondent No.5 on the post of Shiksha Sahayogi. This Court while issuing notices to the respondents stayed the operation of the order of the District Collector dated 7.9.2002. The interim order was continued even after the respondent No.5 had put in appearance. It would thus evident that the order of District Collector has remained stayed. The respondents though contend that there was no hearing prior to passing of the impugned order but the order passed by the District Collector dated 7.10.2002 would speak for itself. The order does not indicate that any 5 notice of hearing was given to the petitioner. This order simply states that respondent No.5 Hansraj and Block Elementary Education Officer were present and were heard. The order also indicates that the record of Parivedna Samiti which accepted the representation of the petitioner were also summoned and the relevant register and other record of the Gram Panchayat were also examined. In a case where the petitioner was appointed having undergone training and thereafter joined the appointed post as Shiksha Sahayogi, the District Collector could not behind his back pass an order which had the effect of nullifying his appointment and terminating his services. The petitioner after his appointment on such post acquired valuable right. Such right could not be taken away in the manner in which it has been done. The District Collector though has passed the order setting asdie selection of the petitioner, but at the same time he has adjudged repondent No.5 to be eligible for appointment and not the petitioner. Contention that consideration for appointment could be confined only to the residents of the Gram Panachayat, Kaneti and the candidate of the contingency for which the Office of Gram Panchayat is concerned is reserved cannot be said to be sustainable in law. Subsequently such conditions have been deleted and 6 deviated from even by the State Government. The right to consideration this cannot be denied to the petitioner. Appointment has to be made on merits of the respective candidates which include both the petitioner and respondent No.5, but on other aspect the matter is required to considered by the District Collector afresh as the impugned order has been passed by him without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such an order would be, therefore, hit by Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and would be liable to be set aside as being bad in law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 27.9.2002 passed by the District Collector, Alwar is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Collector, Alwar to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.63.