BALVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIS involved in all these writ petitions is common and all are founded on identical facts, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to all these petitions are that the petitioners are working on contract basis as Gram Rojgar Sahayak/Data Operators in MNREGA under various panchayat samities of the State. As per version of the petitioners, most of them are working on contract basis since 2008 and their contract of employment was extended upto 31st August 2013. Assailing the impugned advertisement dated 14th February 2013, issued by the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, for making direct recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, petitioners have averred in the writ petitions that criteria for selection is full of anomalies and the same has deprived many aspirants for the job from their right of consideration in an absolutely arbitrary manner. Apart from quashing of the advertisement aforementioned, the petitioners have also prayed for relief that they may not be removed from the services without following due process of law and affording an opportunity of bearing heard. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6799/2013 (Balvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), an additional affidavit is submitted and dated 7th alongwith the additional affidavit, order of February 2013 is enclosed, which indicates that the term of contract of employment has been extended upto 31st of August 2013. Alongwith Additional Affidavit, one more document, a communication dated 5th of July 2013, issued by the department is also enclosed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners Mr. RDS Kharlia and Ms. Pintoo Pareek have strenuously urged that before issuance of the advertisement dated 14th February 2013 the requisite number of vacancies were not determined by the respondents and therefore the entire selection process is bad in law. Attacking the selection process, learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that the selection process has not been carried out in a transparent manner and the methodology of the selection process is absolutely arbitrary which has resulted in deprivation of many eligible candidates who are eligible to compete for the selection. The learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the petitioners have participated in the selection process but during selection process the criteria for selection was not uniformly pressed into service and the same has resulted in exclusion of their names from the select list in an absolutely arbitrary and unfair manner. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire selection is a farce and it is essentially aimed to deprive the petitioners from their job which they are carrying out on contract basis under various schemes of MNREGA since last so many years.