1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2818/2008 Pista v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 6th November, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. B.L.Bishnoi for the petitioner. Mr. Alkesh Agarwal] Mr. B.S.Charan ] for the respondents. .... The Zila Parishad, Jodhpur by its advertisement dated 24.1.2008 invited applications from eligible candidates to be considered for appointment as Gram Rojgar Sahayak for executing National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme created under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2005”). As per the advertisement referred above the aspirant for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak must be of 18 years as on 1.1.2008. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 submitted applications in pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.1.2008. The petitioner on being selected was given appointment as Gram Rojgar Sahayak and she joined the duties on 9.4.2008. On the same day the District Programme Coordinator, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Jodhpur cancelled appointment of the petitioner and accorded appointment to respondent No.5 2 Smt. Sarda. The appointment of the petitioner was cancelled she being below the 18 years of age. To challenge the order dated 9.4.2008, this petition for writ is preferred. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the District Programme Coordinator and also on behalf of the respondent No.5. In reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the District Programme Coordinator it is stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 6.9.1990, therefore, at the time of appointment she was below the age of 18 years and as such appointment was erroneously accorded to her. The appointment was given to the respondent No.5 being next to the petitioner in the select list prepared in order of merit. On behalf of the respondent No.5 it is stated that as per the Act of 2005 and the scheme framed thereunder, appointment could have been given to an adult person and the petitioner was not adult at the time of appointment and, therefore, her appointment was rightly cancelled by the District Programme Coordinator. Heard counsel for the parties. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that as per the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 the age of the petitioner was required to be examined as on 1.1.2009 and not on the date of 3 appointment. If the respondents would have examined age of the petitioner as on 1.1.2009, she would have completed the age of 18 years and as such would have been treated within the age limit prescribed. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The appointment of the petitioner was not made for the panchayat service but for execution of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The service conditions, therefore, are required to be determined as per the conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 24.1.2008. The advertisement concerned specifically mentions that the age of the applicant should be 18 years as on 1.1.2008. The petitioner was admittedly not of 18 years on 1.1.2008 and, therefore, she was not eligible to be considered for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. It is also pertinent to note that in the application form the petitioner despite knowing it well that she has not completed 18 years of age, mentioned her age as 18 years. This is nothing but an effort to mislead the respondents. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.