CWP 3267/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH O R D E R (1) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3267/2010 Jagdish Chand Vs. State & anr. (2) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3268/2010 Gajanand Lodha Vs. State & anr. (3) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3269/2010 Radhe Shyam Bairagi Vs. State & anr. (4) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3270/2010 Naval Kishore Meena Vs. State & anr. (5) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3271/2010 Om Prakash Vs. State & anr. (6) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3272/2010 Jagdish Prasad Vs. State & anr. (7) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3273/2010 Lal Chand Meena Vs. State & anr. (8) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3274/2010 Durga Lal Lavvanshi Vs. State & anr. (9) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3275/2010 Gopal Lal Vs. State & anr. DATE OF ORDER : 05/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, for petitioners. Since the controversy involved in the above writ petitions is identical, the same are being decided by this common order. The petitioners, as alleged in the writ petitions, were appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak in district Jhalawar in 2007, have filed the present writ petition on the apprehension that since the respondents have initiated a short term advertisement dt. 23/06/2009, their services will be terminated. As per their own saying the process in pursuance to the short term advertisement dt. 23/06/2009 has not been initiated by the respondents and apart from it what is being apprehended by the petitioners CWP 3267/2010 [2] cannot be inferred by this Court. Even the petitioners did not made representation to the authority, if they had not been permitted to work after December, 2009. At this stage, the writ petition is premature. However, if any order prejudicial to their interests is passed, the petitioners will always be at liberty to avail remedy available to them under law. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-3267-CW-2010-final.doc