[2025:RJ-JP:2258] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18445/2024 Rakesh Choudhary S/o Shri Girdhari Lal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 51, New Colony, Ward No. 14, Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 5. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Virat Nagar, Jaipur. 6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 7. Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Gram Papdi Post- Sothana Via Viratnagar Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 8. Rmanarayan Sharma S/o Shri Mannalal Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Near Keshav Rai Temple Virat Nagar Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 16/01/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that department of Panchayati Raj issued a circular dated 08.11.2016 whereby, guidelines were prescribed for the recruitment on the [2025:RJ-JP:2258] (2 of 4) [CW-18445/2024] post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak on honorarium basis. In pursuance with the said advertisement a number of posts were advertised seeking intake of applicants on ad-hoc basis for a period of one year, with honorarium as Rs. 6000/- per month. 2. Further, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has applied for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak, for Gram Panchayat Jaisinghpura, Panchayat Samiti Virat Nagar, District Jaipur on 16.02.2017, subsequently the petitioner along with the other candidates was called for interview on 17.02.2017. The controversy arose when the respondents favored the local resident candidates and selected them for the said post. 3. It is further submitted that respondent Nos. 7 & 8 were selected dehors the guidelines, the governing statue and sans appropriate means in an arbitrary manner. Being aggrieved of the said action of the respondents the petitioner filed a compliant/objection before the District Education Officer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel has relied upon the order dated 24.05.2017 passed in Sunita Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1032/2017 and have submitted that a committee was constituted and an enquiry was conducted. Resultant to the said committee report respondent Nos.7 & 8 were terminated. 5. Subsequently, the said order was assailed by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23013/2017 titled as Anil Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. wherein, the present petitioner applied to impleaded himself in array of the respondents [2025:RJ-JP:2258] (3 of 4) [CW-18445/2024] and resultantly the said impleadment application was allowed and the petitioner herein appeared therein as respondent No.6. 6. It is further submitted that vide order dated 23.10.2018 whilst placing reliance upon the judgment encapsulated in Madan Singh & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12378/2017, the said petition was disposed of, quashing the termination orders dated 05.12.2017 of the petitioners therein and with a direction to the respondents to ensure compliance of the said order preferably within a period of two months. However, from a bare perusal of the said judgment it can be deduced that the petitioners therein are same as respondent Nos. 7 & 8 herein. 7. The present petitioner did not assail the said order, rather he had initiated a contempt proceedings and filed a representation. Howsoever, qua the said representation no heed is paid till date. 8. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances of the instant matter and taking note of the checkered history and timeline of the instant issue, it can be noted that the present petition is hit and barred by the principle of delay and laches; that the instant petition is filed in the year 2024 seeking judicial indulgence in a recruitment process pertaining to the year 2016. Moreover, the termination orders dated 5th December, 2017 were quashed and set aside vide order dated 23.10.2018 (Annexure-5) passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23013/2017 (Supra) and the said order was accepted by the petitioner, as the petitioner got himself impleaded as a respondent party (respondent no. 6) in the [2025:RJ-JP:2258] (4 of 4) [CW-18445/2024] said petition. Therefore, it can be noted that the lis in question does not survives. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/52