SATPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel Mr. Vikas Choudhary assistant to Mr. SS Ladrecha, Additional Advocate General states that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of Mani Lal Pandor Vs. State of Rajasthan (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15837/2017) decided on 13. 12. 2017, which reads as under :-

(2.) Brief facts noticed by this Court are that the respondents amended the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, while exercising the powers conferred by Section 102 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No. 13 of 1994). The amended Rules were named as "The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016". As per the amended Rules, the amendment of Rule 258 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 was made, particularly after the existing sub-rule (2) of Rule 258, new sub-rule (3) was added. Thus, the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak was created, on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis, for Panchayat Office.

(3.) For the execution of sub-rule (3) of Rule 258, the respondents came out with a circular dated 08. 11. 2016. The said circular laid down the service conditions of the persons to be selected as Gram Panchayat Sahayak. For the purpose of such selection, the eligibility criteria was as follows:-