[2026:RJ-JD:1907]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2202/2003 Smt. Shakuntla D/o Shri Om Prakash, By caste Jat, aged about 26 years, resident of VPO Gandhibadi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan Through District Magistrate, Hanumangarh.

2. The District Project Coordinator, DPEP, Hanumangarh.

3. The Block Concern Centre Incharge, Bhadra, DPEP, District Hanumangarh.

4. The Selection Committee, ECE Centre, Block Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

5. Ms. Vinod Kumari D/o Shri Ramji Lal, resident of VPO Gram Panchayat Malkheda, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Trivedi with Mr. Adu Ram Choudhary For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

13/01/2026

1. The matter has been listed in the category of ‘Old Cases for Early Hearing’.

2. Despite service, none appeared for the respondents on

10.12.2025 and none has appeared even today.

3. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 25.04.2003 (Annex.4) whereby respondent No.5 was given appointment while cancelling that of the petitioner.

4. The facts are that vide advertisement dated 26.02.2003 (Annex.1), applications for selection on the post of ‘Prerak’ were invited. The petitioner being selected after due process was afforded appointment and she joined on 01.04.2003 (Annex.3). However, a complaint regarding her selection was made and in pursuance to the same, vide order impugned dated 25.04.2003, selection of the petitioner was cancelled and respondent No.5 was directed to be appointed in her place.

5. Vide interim order dated 12.10.2006, effect of order dated 25.04.2003 to the extent of both the petitioner and respondent No.5, was stayed. Meaning thereby, the petitioner continued in job by virtue of the interim order.

6. Although no reason for cancellation of the selection of the petitioner has been assigned in order dated 25.04.2003 but as per the averment made in the reply to the writ petition, the petitioner did not belong to Gram Panchayat Malkhera whereas as per the condition of the advertisement, the incumbent ought to have been a resident of the same Gram Panchayat.

7. A bare perusal of the advertisement in question reflects that qua Block Bhadra, applications were invited for almost ten Gram Panchayats, one of them being 4 SDR Gandhibadi. The dispute raised by the respondents is that the petitioner did not belong to Gram Panchayat Malkhera, but was a resident of Gram Panchayat Gandhibadi. It is incomprehensible as to how the said dispute was even raised when no post qua Gram Panchayat Malkhera was even put to advertisement. The advertisement clearly reflects the vacancy qua 4 SDR Gandhibadi and it nowhere reflects any vacancy pertaining to Gram Panchayat Malkhera. In that view of the matter, the issue as raised itself seems to be fallacious.

8. Furthermore, order impugned also deserves to be quashed on the count that it does not assign any reason, whatsoever, for rejection of the selection of the petitioner. The order being totally an unreasoned and a non-speaking one, cannot be affirmed. Order impugned dated 25.04.2003 (Annex.4) is hereby quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner. The writ petition hence, stands allowed

9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (REKHA BORANA),J

139-manila/-