SBCWP4489/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4489/2010 Mithlesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 02.04.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Tanveer Ahmed, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Grievance of petitioner is that even though he worked with respondents as Gram Rojgar Sahayak with effect from 01.05.2008 and agreement was also later executed for a period of one year i.e. from 25.02.2009 to remain valid till 25.02.2010; respondents are now going to make fresh appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Kolwa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa. Shri Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that Development Officer, Bandikui, by his letter dated 15.03.2010, wrote to all Gram Panchayats to renew agreement of appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak for further one year but in the case of petitioner, the respondents are not renewing his contractual SBCWP4489/2010 // 2 // appointment. It is contended that there is no complaint against petitioner's working and that if the respondents appoint another person in place of petitioner, that would create a third party interest and would complicate the matter for him because earlier also he had to approach this court by filing writ petition, wherein direction was given to respondents to consider and decide his representation and despite being such representation made, no decision was taken by them. Having regard to facts narrated above, I am of the view that instead of directly entertaining writ petition, grievance of petitioner can be better examined by District Programme Coordinator/District Collector, Dausa, to whom petitioner shall make a fresh representation raising all those arguments which he has raised before this Court. The District Programme Coordinator/District Collector, Dausa shall examine representation of petitioner with particular emphasis to the fact if there was no adverse report against petitioner about his working of previous time, he should be given preference in the matter of appointment and as per own decision of respondents to renew contract of appointment SBCWP4489/2010 // 3 // for further one year and in that event no deviation should be made in the case of petitioner. Representation shall be decided within a period of one month from the date it is made, and before such representation is decided, no fresh appointment be made on the post held by petitioner till decision of such representation is taken. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//