HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 167/2021 Tasvir Bai W/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Udaipura, Village Panchayati Bagali, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Raj) ----Appellant-Plaintiff Versus 1. Gram Panchayat Bagali, Panchayat Samiti Itawa, Teshil Piplda, District Kota (Raj.) Through Sarpanch Monu. 2. Raju Vaishnav, Gram Sevak And Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bagali, Panchayat Samiti Itawa, Tehsil Piplada, District Kota (Raj.) 3. Child Development Project Officer, Office Of Itawa, District Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents-Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shiv Shanker Choudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akash Gaur, Dy.G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 26/08/2025 The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Kota (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No.06/2018 whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Itawa, Kota in civil suit No. 36/16 by which the plaintiff’s suit has been dismissed. (2 of 4) [CSA-167/2021] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants mentioning therein that the defendant No.3 sent a proposal to defendant No.1- Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bagali and defendant No.2-Gram Sevak-cum-Gram Secretary, Gram Panchayat-Bagali for selection on the post of Aanganbari Karyakarta and Sahayika, for which, a meeting was held by the Gram Panchayat. In the meeting dated 24.08.2016 of the Gram Panchayat, vide proposal No.10, the applications were invited for the vacant post of Aanganbari Karyakarta and Sahayika, wherein it was decided that for the post of Aanganbari Karyakarta, eligibility would be that the candidates must be 10th class pass and should be between the age group of 21 to 45 years, the candidates were required to be socially and economically backward class and priority was also to be given to the candidates belonging to Sahariya and Kachchi Basti. The plaintiff and Smt. Kavita Bai, both applied for the same post. Although, Smt. Kavita Bai was 12th class passed but she was 19 years and 10 months old at that time, so she was not eligible for the said post. The plaintiff was 10th class pass and she was 26 years 8 months and 23 days of age, so she was eligible for the said post but the defendants wanted to appoint Smt. Kavita Bai on the post in question. So, they postponed the selection process to hold meeting afresh. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. Despite several opportunities, the defendants had not filed the written statement/reply. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (3 of 4) [CSA-167/2021] “ ¼d½ vk;k okfn;k izfroknhx.k dks bl vk’k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djk ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS fd izfroknhx.k xzke iapk;r ckxyh n~okjk izLrkfor cSBd esa izLrko la- 10 fnukafdr 24-08-16 dks fujLr ugha djsa rFkk okfn;k dks izLrkfor vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ dh fu;qfDr nsosa\ ¼[k½ vuqrks"k \” To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Tasvir Bai and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants have not adduced any evidence in their defence. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.2017, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated 24.11.2017 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.08.2021 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff was the only eligible candidate for appointment on the post of Aanganbari Worker. Smt. Kavita Bai was ineligible because she had not fulfilled the requisite eligibility as laid down by the Department. Therefore, only the plaintiff was entitled to be appointed to the post of Aanganbari Worker. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below be set aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. (4 of 4) [CSA-167/2021] Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff because the plaintiff failed to adduce any cogent evidence that the defendants were going to appoint Smt. Kavita Bai on the post of Aanganbari Worker. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly dismissed the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff and rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants were going to appoint Smt. Kavita Bai on the post of Aanganbari Worker. So, in my considered opinion, no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/15