[2025:RJ-JP:27923] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 71/2009 Satya Narain Pareta aged 40 years, son of Modulal Ji, R/o Kudanpur, Panchayat Samiti Sangod, Distt. Kota (Raj) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Raj through Distt. Collector Kota 2. District Saksharta Samiti through Secy. Satat Zila Shiksha Adhikaran Kota 3. Gram Panchayat Kundanpur Panchayat Samiti Sangod Distt. Kota Through Sarpanch 4. Principal, Govt. Secondary School Kundanpur, Tehsil Sangod, Distt. Kota ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 25/07/2025 The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Kota (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in appeal No. 88/07, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), North Kota in civil suit No. 528/03 by which the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and mandatory injunction has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect that he is [2025:RJ-JP:27923] (2 of 4) [CSA-71/2009] resident of Village Kundanpura and he is a post graduate. The defendant No. 2 issued a notification for appointing Prerak under Continuous Education Programme and applications were invited in this regard. The plaintiff also submitted the application form for which a meeting of Gram Sabha was convened on 26.01.2003. In the said meeting, the plaintiff being the only eligible candidates, was selected as Prerak under Continuous Education Programme. Despite his selection, defendant No. 4 did not appoint the plaintiff and after tampering with record name of Kanhaiya Lal was inserted. Thereafter, the defendants started a new selection process for appointing the Prerak under Continuous Education Programme. It was prayed that the plaintiff be appointed and the defendants be restrained to adopt the fresh selection process for the purpose of appointment on the post of Nodal Prerak. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff was never selected by the Block Level Committee and plaintiff did not possess requisite qualification for appointment. Previously plaintiff never worked as a Prerak therefore in absence of experience, the plaintiff is not eligible for the said post. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had not filed their written statement. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k oknh ?kks"k.kk o vkns’kkRed LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk bl vk’k; dh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd og xzke lHkk ds izko/kku la0 4¼1½ ds vk/kkj ij uksMy izsjd ds in ij fu;qfDr ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:27923] (3 of 4) [CSA-71/2009] 2- vk;k oknh dks dksbZ okn dkj.k izfroknhx.k ds fo:) mRiUu gqvk gS ,oa dksbZ fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k nkok oknh /kkjk 80 lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ls ckf/kr gS\ 4- vk;k bl U;k;ky; dks okn lquus dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Satya Narain Pareta, got examined PW-2 Devendra Singh and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Abdul Salam Ansari. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2006, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated 22.12.2006 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2007 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. Plaintiff was only qualified person who was eligible to be appointed on the post of Prerak but on account of conspiracy with Kanhaiya Lal, appointment order was not issued in favour of the plaintiff. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below are required to be set aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. No one has put in appearance for the defendants. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. [2025:RJ-JP:27923] (4 of 4) [CSA-71/2009] It is an admitted position that while adducing the evidence, plaintiff failed to adduce cogent evidence that he ever worked on the post of Prerak and for this reason, he did not duly filled the application form as he was not having the requisite eligibility for the said post. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal. So, 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 Tahir/42