1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2528/2007 Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order :: 4.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Manoj Bohra, for the petitioner/s. Mr. Ravindra Acharya } for the respondents. Mr. Devendra Mahalana } ... To claim appointment as Shiksa Sahayogi with Rajiv Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathshala, Gram Panchayat-Kukanwali and also to challenge to the appointment of respondent No.10 as Shiksha Sahayogi, this petition for writ is preferred. In brief facts of the case are that a scheme was introduced by the Government of Rajasthan to have primary schools in rural area and for that purpose Shiksha Sahayogis were required to be employed. As per the scheme the minimum qualification to be employed as Shiksha Sahayogi was that the incumbent must be possessing senior secondary/higher secondary school examination certificate and a preference was available to the persons having requisite training in education. By the scheme aforesaid, it was also made clear that the qualification of Senior Secondary/Higher Secondary was subject to the relaxation up to the the qualification of 8th standard for the schools in remote tribal or arid areas. 2 The Gram Sabha- Kukanwali conducted process of selection for appointment of Shiksha Sahayogi on 15.5.1999 and in the select list name of the respondent No.10 was at S.No.1 and the petitioner was placed at S.No.2. At the first instance appointment was given to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.10, but the petitioner was not sent for requisite training by the respondents even by utilizing his services for a period of about 11 months. The petitioner made various representations to the respondents and also other competent authorities to send him for training and also to employ him as Shiksha Sahayogi in place of respondent No.10. It is also relevant to note that no payment of salary was made to the petitioner for the period his services were utilized as Shiksha Sahayogi. Acting upon the representation submitted by the petitioner an inquiry was conducted by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Kuchaman City, wherein a finding was given that appointment of respondent No.10 was erroneously made and services of the petitioner were utilized from 7.7.1999 to 8.9.2000 and for that period no wages were paid to him. Despite such inquiry and findings no action was taken. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner while claiming the relief prayed for that the respondent No.10 is son of the then Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat – Kukanwali, and therefore, appointment was accorded to him for extraneous consider. The respondent No.10, as a matter of fact, is not even eligible to be employed with as Shiksha Sahayogi being lacking qualification. 3 A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents No.7 and 8, those are the present Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat-Kukanwali and Gram Sewak, Panchayat Samiti -Kuchaman City. As per them the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Sahayogi on an additional post and that no salary was paid to him at his own desire. With regard to appointment of respondent No.10 nothing is said by the respondent NO.7 and 10 in their reply. However, a preliminary objection is raised relating to non-joinder of necessary party, i.e. father of respondent No.10, former Sarpanch, against whom allegations of mala fides are alleged. A separate reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.10 stating therein that appointment was given to him by relaxing the qualification as available for the persons belonging to tribal and arid zones. Heard counsel for the parties. It is not at all in dispute that the respondent No.10 is son of former Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat – Kukanwali, in whose tenure appointment impugned was given, though he was not possessing requisite qualification for appointment as Shiksha Sahayogi. Nothing is 4 available on record to establish that the Gram Panchayat – Kukanwali in district Nagaur is a remote arid or tribal area. Learned counsel for the respondents, other than respondent No.10, has shown me the original record of the process of selection wherein too nothing is recorded that the Gram Panchayat – Kukanwali was ever treated as a remote arid or tribal area and it also no where refers regarding relaxation extended in educational qualification. From the proceeding of selection it also appears that there is no reason given to place the respondent No.10 at S.No.1, despite having less qualification than the petitioner. The non- eligibility of the respondent No.10 to hold the post of Shiksha Sahayogi is apparent and it appears that the appointment was accorded to him by extending extraneous benefit being son of the then Sarpanch. Illegality in appointment of the respondent No.10 was also found by the competent officer of the respondents who conducted an inquiry, but no action thereon was taken and the illegal appointee was allowed to continue in service. As a matter of fact, counsel for all the respondents are having no defence regarding the allegation of lacking eligibility by respondent No.10 to hold the post of Shiksha Sahayogi. In view of it, his appointment is certainly bad. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The appointment of respondent No.10 as Shiksha Sahayogi, Gram Panchayat – Kukanwali is declared illegal, and therefore, the same is quashed. The respondents, 5 except respondent No.10, are directed to appoint the petitioner as Shiksha Sahayogi, Gram Panchayat – Kukanwali as he was placed at S.No.2 in the select list. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits, except the actual payment of wages. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '