1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4642/2009 Shrawan Kumar Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 7.12.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Pradeep Choudhary ,for the petitioner. Mr.K.K.Bissa ] Mr.Tarun Dhaka ], for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure-P/9) by which he was removed from the post of Rojgar Sahayak. The petitioner's contention is that he submitted application for the above post, copy of this application is Annexure 3. He did not suppress any fact nor he has been removed on account of suppression of any fact and giving wrong facts in the application. He has been removed without there being any opportunity of hearing to him by the impugned order in spite of the fact that he was duly selected by resolution of the Panchayat Samiti Barmer dated 20.02.2008 (Annexure-P/4) Learned counsel for the State submitted that before removing the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted, copies of which are annexed from the Annexure R/1 to 2 R/2. The respondent No. 6 Dhana Ram's name was at serial No. 1 in the list, which is clear from the Annexure R/3, yet wrongly name of the petitioner was recommended for the post, therefore, competent officer vide communication dated 14th April 2009 Annexure R/5 held that petitioner was given appointment illegally by giving preference above the respondent No. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submitted that petitioner was given appointment for fixed term of one year, which expired on 31st March 2009 and therefore, writ petition has become infructuous and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is also submitted that this fact cannot be disputed that respondent was more meritorious as he was having more marks in graduation then the marks obtained by the petitioner. It is also submitted that respondent No. 6 is a member of the BPL also and has also passed the computer course. In view of the above, the respondent No. 6 was more meritorious, hence, petitioner could not have been given appointment. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that petitioner discloses all the relevant facts in his application and 3 those were considered by the Gram Panchayat and, thereafter, resolution dated 20 February 2008 was passed, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P/4. The petitioner's name was duly recommended for appointment by the Gram Panchayat on 29.03.2008 and then he was given appointment by the Projected Officer vide Annexure P/6 dated 31.03.2008 , thereafter, petitioner executed the agreement Annexure P/7. There is no allegation against the petitioner of giving any wrong facts on the basis of which steps could have been taken under sub-clause 1 of clause 6 of the agreement Annexure P/7. The petitioner's services have not been terminated under Clause 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order Annexure P/9, therefore, the order has been passed against the principle of natural justice. So far as petitioner's services is concerned, it is true that as per the contract, the period of service was only for one year ending over in March 2009, but as per the scheme itself, this period could have been extended to five years periodically and if the order Annexure A/9 is set aside then the authorities may consider the petitioner's case for further extension as per Annexure 4 P/1 and under the agreement Annexure P/7. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petition has become infructuous. It is made clear that now it is only for the authorities concerned to take a decision whether to give extension to the petitioner by exercising power of extension under Annexure P/1 and P/7 or not. However, it is made clear that while considering the case of the petitioner for extension under the Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/7, the respondent Dhana Ram may also be heard. The concerned authorities are free to take decision after hearing both the parties. In view of the above reasons, the writ petition of the petitioner is disposed of and the order P/9 and P/10 are set aside. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. Bharti/-.