[2025:RJ-JP:39376] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14659/2025 1. Vinod Kumar Saini S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Todaganga District Dausa, Rajasthan 2. Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Lal Sharma, R/o Mukam Post Bagdi, District Dausa 3. Mukesh Gujar S/o Ramnarayan Gujar, R/o Ghatapada Lalsot District Dausa 4. Bhagwan Sahay Meena S/o Laxminarayan, R/o Samel Tehsil Lalsot Distt. Dausa 5. Sonu Devi Bairwa W/o Vinod Kumar Bairwa, R/o Suratpura 6. Atul Kumar Saini Son Of Gangadhar Mali, R/o Bawdi Walon Ki Dhani, Lalsot 7. Ramjilal Meena S/o Gangaram, R/o Mukam Post Shivsinghpura, Tehsil Neemrana 8. Ramshwroop Meena S/o Kaluram, R/o Mukam Lalpura Post Mirzapur Tehsil Lalsot District Dausa 9. Roshni Saini W/o Moti Lal, Mukam Post Gol Tehsil Lalsot District Dausa 10. Baksaram Gurjar S/o Nanakram, R/o Mukam Post Toda Dhekla Dist. Dausa 11. Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Prahlad, R/o Dagariyawas Post Chhodiyawas Dist. Dausa 12. Kishan Lal Meena S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, R/o Maharajpura Dist. Dausa 13. Urmila Jangid W/o Ramesh Chand Jangid, R/o Mukam Post Deedwana District Dausa 14. Ramkhiladi Meena S/o Aukar, R/o Mukam Post Neejampur District Dausa 15. Pappu Lal Sharma S/o Radhay Shayam Sharma, R/o Salempur District Dausa 16. Ramdhan Saini S/o Chhotu Lal, R/o Khatwa District Dausa 17. Omprakash S/o Badrilal Bairwa, R/o Ladpura, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan-303503 18. Mukesh Kumar S/o Nathulal, R/o Bheema Tehsil Lalsot District Dausa [2025:RJ-JP:39376] (2 of 4) [CW-14659/2025] 19. Changari Meena W/o Ramkishor Meena, R/o Khatumber Tehsil Lalsot District Dausa 20. Manju Sharma W/o Vikak Kumar Sharma, R/o Mukam Post Sindoli Post Badh Badhwa Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa 21. Bhagwan Sahay Meena S/o Shambhu Lal, R/o Thalod Post Nijarna, District Dausa 22. Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Rewatmal Sharma, R/o Mukam Post Saligrampura Post Chansen District Dausa 23. Mohini Meena W/o Visram Meena, R/o Mukam Post Rahuwas, District Dausa. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Director, Literacy And Continuing Education, Shiksha Sankul, Vth Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nidhi Sharma for Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 24/09/2025 1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners has challenged the process issued by the respondents for the appointment of eligible persons to the post of Atal Prerak. It is stated that the petitioners have been working in the educational programmes launched by the respondent-State in the year 1986, for last more than 10 years, yet ignoring their experience, now a [2025:RJ-JP:39376] (3 of 4) [CW-14659/2025] new scheme has been launched by the respondent-Department, in which, instead of recruiting experienced persons, recruitment has been made from the open market, which is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the guidelines issued by the respondent-Government in this regard are faulty and defective as there is no provision for granting preference to the persons who were already carrying out similar work in the earlier schemes framed by the Government. The respondent- Government, by issuing different schemes from time to time by different names, is adopting practice of exploitation by engaging the innocent persons, who, on account of the scheme being launched by the State Government, have a legitimate expectation that in future, their services shall be utilized or they shall be granted preference in future appointments. 2. I have heard the learned counsel of the petitioners and perused the record. 3. The guidelines issued by the Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department are apparently clear, where a special project of Atal Gyan Kendra has been introduced, for which the aspirants are required to possess the qualifications as prescribed in the guidelines (Annexure-1). 4. Admittedly, there is no provision to give preference to the persons already carrying out alleged similar work. In the absence of any such statutory provision or any clause in the guidelines, this Court, in exercise of it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the respondent- [2025:RJ-JP:39376] (4 of 4) [CW-14659/2025] State to include a particular provision for granting preference to a particular class of persons. 5. In view of above, no interference is called for in this writ petition, and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/44