[2025:RJ-JP:31032] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1671/2009 Deen Dayal Pahadia S/o Shri Darshrath Lal Pahadia, aged about 37 years, resident of Near Mataji Talab, Village and Post of Chauth Ka Barbara Tehsil Sawai Madhopur District Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Secretary Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Chief Executive Officer & Additional District Program Coordinator (Narega), Zila Parishad, Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan) 3. Block Development and Program Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan) 4. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chauth Ka Barbara, Panchayat Samiti, Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 11/08/2025 1. Petitioner has challenged advertisement dated 27.01.2009 (Annex.-8) and further prayed that the respondents may be restrained for discontinuing the services of the petitioner as Gram Sahayak at Gram Panchayat, Chauth ka Barbara, Sawai Madhopur. 2. Petitioner has come out with a case that he was engaged vide order dated 08.09.2007 issued by the Karyalaya [2025:RJ-JP:31032] (2 of 3) [CW-1671/2009] Karyakarm Adhikari (Rashtriya Gramin Rozgar Gaurantee Yojana) on contract basis. However, without terminating his services and despite the fact that there was only one post of Rozgar Sahayak, the impugned advertisement was issued and therefore, he was apprehending the termination of his services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner indicates that in the instant writ petition interim order dated 13.02.2009 was granted by the Co-ordinate Bench allowing petitioner to continue on the post of Gram Sahayak in Gram Panchayat, Chauth ka Barbara, Sawai Madhopur pursuant to such interim order as he is still continuing in service. 4. Reply to the writ petition is filed by the respondents in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner was indulged in many irregularities and his work was not satisfactory, under such circumstances, advertisement dated 27.01.2009 was issued for appointing another person on contract basis. 5. I have perused the record and heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. On bare perusal of the advertisement dated 27.01.2009, it is clear that the engagement sought to be made was on contract basis and was purely temporary, hence, as of now, due to efflux of time, the aforesaid advertisement has lost its efficacy. 7. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is being disposed of with the directions to the respondents that in case, services of the petitioner are required to be terminated then such action may be taken in accordance with law. Due opportunity of hearing may be given to the petitioner before taking any adverse [2025:RJ-JP:31032] (3 of 3) [CW-1671/2009] action against him. In case, any appointments on the post in question is required to be made, the respondents are at liberty to do so in accordance with the prevailing Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /32