1 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8342/2007. Lalit Menariya. vs. State of Raj. and others. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8343/2007. Jamna Menariya. vs. State of Raj. and others. Date : 21.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioners. Mr.KK Bissa, for the respondents no.1 to 5. Mr.Sudhir Saruparia, for the respondent no.6. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. These two writ petitions have been preferred by two candidates who were initially appointed as Gram Sahayak in the year 2006 and as per the Government's order dated 20.8.2007, according to the petitioners, their services were regularised. Then again for the same post of Gram Sahayak, advertisement was issued in the year 2007 by the respective bodies of the relevant Gram Panchayats wherein both the petitioners applied. The petitioners' contention in both these writ petitions are that they are more qualified than the private respondents in the respective writ petitions. In the case of Lalit Menariya, petitioner in SBCWP No.8342/2007, his name was not even considered whereas in the case of Jamna Menariya, petitioner in SBCWP No.8343/2007, her 2 name was considered by the selection committee. Since the name of Lalit Menariya was not considered, therefore, his name was not recommended for the post of Gram Sahayak whereas Jamna Menariya, who was placed at S.No.1 in the merit, yet she was not given appointment. The contention of the petitioners is that their candidature has been rejected inspite of the fact that they have qualifications for the post of Gram Sahayak which is laid down in the order dated 8.10.2007 (Annex.8). The State submitted reply to the writ petition but substantially the facts have not been disputed in the reply. The private respondent submitted reply in SBCWP No.8342/2007 wherein preliminary objection has been raised that the term of appointment which could have been offered in that selection was upto 2.12.2008 and since that period had expired, therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner has become infructuous. The private respondents also stated that the petitioner is not resident of Gram Panchayat, Adinda whereas the private respondent is bonafide resident of village Adinda. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the above plea submitted that in identical facts and circumstances in SBCWP No.8100/2007 (Dhanraj Purohit. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), 3 this Court allowed the said writ petition vide judgment dated 17.3.2009 on the ground that less meritorious person cannot be given appointment in preference to the experienced and more merit person. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. It is true that the contract in question was term appointment but at the same time, the private respondent no.6 has placed on record copy of agreement which was required to be executed and which in fact has been executed by the respondent no.6 wherein it is though provided that initial contract period shall be for one year, however, it can be extended by mutual consent upto a period of five years (not more than one year at a time). Not only this but the respondent no.6 who got appointment for fixed period upto 2.12.2008 in SBCWP No.8342/2007 admittedly is continuing and holding the post by virtue of such appointment. Therefore, if it is found that the petitioners have been wrongly denied appointment and if the petitioners are found suitable to be appointed on the post of Gram Sahayak, then they may have opportunity to continue on the post upto five years in terms of the offer made by none else than the employer respondent. Therefore, the writ 4 petition has not become infructuous after expiry of the period of offer of the employment. So far as merit is concerned, substantially this fact is not in dispute that both the petitioners are having better educational qualifications as well as have experience certificate for working under the same scheme and particularly on the same post and that is a preference provided for giving appointment by order dated 8.10.2007. In view of the above, the appointments given to the private respondents in both these writ petitions cannot be sustained and the above view finds support from the judgment delivered in Dhanraj Purohit (supra). In view of the above reasons, both these writ petitions are allowed, the orders of appointment of the respondent in both the writ petitions namely, Kanhaiya Lal in SBCWP No.8342/2007 and Krishan Gopal in SBCWP No.8343/2007, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya