SUSHIL BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the joint request of the parties, these matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) AS projected, the petitioners submitted their candidature for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The policy for appointment on the said post dated 12.03.2010 is filed as Annexure P/1. In pursuance to the said policy, a programme was circulated to all Panchayats for the purpose of initiating and completing the recruitment process for the said post. The petitioners are residents of block Pohari. Total 36 Gram Panchayats were notified in which appointment of Rojgar Sahayak was required to be made according to the policy. The list of such Gram Panchayats is mentioned in Annexure P/3.

(3.) SHRI S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that petitioners' Gram Panchayat has the earning of more than 10 lakhs in a year. Shri Sharma further submits that petitioners submitted their candidature for the said post. The final selecting authority issued the final select list (Annexure P/4). It is submitted that name of petitioners are mentioned in final select list as selected candidates.