JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by Additional District Collector dated 04.05.2006 whereby appeal preferred by respondent-4 assailing decision of selection committee of Gram Panchayat dated 20.01.2006 recommending name of the petitioner for appointment on the post in question was quashed and it has been held by the appellate authority that petitioner could not have been considered for selection since female applicants being available and have a preferential right to be considered for appointment on the post of Education Motivator. 2. It has been alleged in the writ petition that applications were invited for Education Motivators and prospectus in pursuance whereof was issued for selection of 473 Satat Shiksha/Shiksha Motivators. However, guidelines published by the Government for making appointments placed for perusal discloses that only such females falling in the category of married/widow could have submitted their applications; at the same time preferences have been given to such female candidate who belongs to BPL family holding qualification of secondary, however in absence of female candidate s for good reasons in terms of guidelines not being available physical challenged male could be considered but as per scheme made available for perusal there is no such provision for male to submit application for participation in the selection process which the respondent initiated for making appointment on the post of Education Motivators. The petitioner still being in contravention of the instruction booklet submitted his application for Gram Panchayat Torda, Panchayat Samiti Sikari, District Dausa for the post of Education Motivator and after his name being recommended by the Gram Panchayat for appointment, respondent-4 Smt. Kavita Sharma w/o Rajesh Sharma who is also resident of Torda and as alleged was one of the applicant, made complaint to Panchayat Samiti Sikrai, Dausa which was decided vide communication dated 13.10.2005 (Annx.5) in which it has been averred that since no female applicant came forward for the post in question as such candidature of the petitioner was considered for appointment being permissible under the instructions made available by the Government. After her complaint was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2005 and petitioner's name being recommended by District Literacy Committee, Dausa vide order dated 20.01.2006, respondent-4 preferred appeal before Additional District Collector and after opportunity of hearing being afforded to the petitioner as well and examining the complete material available on record it was finally held by the appellate authority that respondent-4 Kavita was one of the applicant submitted application for the post in question was supposed to be considered for appointment. It has also been observed that if no female applicant came forward, it was the duty of Gram Panchayat to give opportunity to female incumbent working on various other posts being called upon to be considered for appointment and that alone would have fulfilled the object with which the scheme in question was introduced by the respondent-State and finally decision of the Gram Panchayat dated 20.01.2006 was quashed and set aside and while remitting the matter back the District Literacy Committee was directed to hold selection afresh in accordance with law. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that a finding of fact has been recorded by Panchayat Samiti Sikarai in its order dated 13.10.2005 that there was no such application submitted by female applicant including that of respondent-4, in absence whereof the Panchayat authority was justified in considering the claim of petitioner for appointment and the final recommendation made by the authority is in conformity with the decision of Panchayat Samiti, Sikarai and in absence of female candidates being available to participate in the selection process the selection committee was justified in giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of Education Motivator. He further submits that even under the guidelines certainly preference has to be given to female applicants but in absence of female applicant being available, male applicant could be considered for appointment and in the facts of the instant case when no female candidate was available for participation in the selection process the selection committee was justified in giving appointment to the petitioner but this fact has been brushed aside by the appellate authority while passing the order impugned dated 04.05.2006 which requires interference by this Court. 4. Reply to the writ petition has been filed wherein it has been averred that the procedure adopted by the Panchayat Samiti Sikarai was not fair and proper and Sarpanch of Gram Torda made recommendations only because petitioner being his nephew. 4. Reply to the writ petition has been filed wherein it has been averred that the procedure adopted by the Panchayat Samiti Sikarai was not fair and proper and Sarpanch of Gram Torda made recommendations only because petitioner being his nephew. It has also been averred that in all 473 centres were established by the Government for fluent and successful convening the complete education scheme in the State of Rajasthan, out of which 41 are nodal complete education centres and 366 are complete education centres, however 66 centres were lying vacant; at the same time in Nagar Palika Dausa 6 centers and in rural area of Dausa 60 centres were lying vacant and the State Government took decision for selection of female motivators to be made in all those centres and for the purpose the District Literacy Committee, Dausa has framed its guidelines regarding participation in the selection process for the post of Education Motivators. It has also been averred that respondent-4 being eligible submitted her application for Education Motivator but for the reason (supra) declaration was made by Gram Sabha while ignoring application of respondent-4 name of petitioner was recommended for appointment which was dehors the guidelines issued by District Literacy Committee, Dausa. 5. Counsel for respondent submits that when the petitioner could not have been considered to participate in the selection process in terms of guidelines there was no justification available with the selection committee to recommend his name, more so when eligible female candidate s being available for the post in question, which has been taken note of by the appellate authority while cancelling the selection made by the Committee vide order dated 20.01.2006 and in absence of any material being available on record finding recorded by the appellate authority in its order impugned supported by the material on record does not call for interference by this Court. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 7. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 7. The guidelines (supra) placed for perusal laying down certain conditions being relevant for the purpose, extract whereof is reproduced here-as-under:- ftyk lk{kjrk lfefr] nkSlk izsjd p;u gsrq funsZ'k lrr f'k{kk ifj;kstuk ds lQy lapkyu ds fy, ftys esa dqy 473 dsUnz Lohd'r gSA ftuesa orZeku esa 41 uksMy lrr f'k{kk dsUnz rFkk 366 lrr~~ f'k{kk dsUnz lapkfyr gSA 66 dsUnz fjDr gSA bu dsUnzksa esa uxj ikfydk nkSlk esa 6 dsUnz rFkk ftys ds xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa 60 dsUnz fjDr py jgsA vlk{kj dks lk{kj dj f'k{kk dh/kkjk ls tksM+us rFkk lerqY; ijh{kk dk;Zdze] thou Lrj vfHko'f) dk;Zdzeksa dks leLr ftys esa ykxw djus ds fy, lHkh dsUnzksa ij iszjd dk p;u vko';d gSA ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd izsjd in ij efgykvksa dk gh p;u fd;k tkosA izsjd p;u ekinaM lrr f'k{kk dsUnz ds lapkyu ds fy, izsjd dk p;u fuEu ekunaM ds vuqlkj fd;k tkosA 1- dsoy efgyk,sa gh vkosnu dj ldrh gS os fookfgr@fo/kok dh Js.kh esa vkuh pkfg,A 2- lrr f'k{kk dsUnz ds fy, efgyk lSdaMjh f'kf{kr gksA uksMy izsjd ds fy, lh0lS0 gksA 3- efgyk izsjd dh U;wure vk;q fnukad 1-1-2005 dks 20 o"kZ dh gksuh pkfg, rFkk mlh xzke iapk;r {ks= dh ewy fuoklh gksuh pkfg,A 4- xzke }kjk Lohdk;Z o usr'Ro dh ;ksX;rk j[kus okys dks izkFkfedrk nh tkosxhA 5- izsjd dks izf'k{k.k ysuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 8- efgyk izsjdksa ds fy, izkFkfedrk ( v ) fo/kok@xjhc ifjokj ( ch0ih0,y0 ) efgyk U;wure lsdsUM~h gksuh pkfg,A ( c ) fo/kok@xjhc ifjokj ( ch0ih0,y0 ) efgyvksa esa fodykax efgykvksa dks izkFkfedrk nh tk;sxh ;fn fo/kok@ch0ih0,y0 efgyk miyC/k uk gksus ij iq:"k fodykax dks izkFkfedrk nsrs gq, p;u fd;k tk;sxkA lrr f'k{kk dsUnzksa ds fy, mDr lfefr izsjd ds fy, mDr ekinaMksa dks/;ku esa j[kdj vkosnu i= izkIr djsxhA de ls rhu efgykvksa dk iSuy rS;kj fd;k tk;sxk o p;u fd;k tk;sxkA p;u ds ckn xzke lHkk esa mldk vuqeksnu djk;k tk;sxkA izsjd p;u ds fy, iszjd dh {kerk dk vkadyu fd;k tkosA izsjd p;u lksp le>dj fd;k tk, blds fy, izsjd esa fuEu ;ksX;rk;sa gksuh vko';d gSA 8. From the guidelines (supra) it clearly emerges that only female candidates falling in the category of married/widow were called upon to submit their applications and apart from other conditions of eligibility preference has also been provided to be given to those female Prerak who belongs to BPL families; at the same time if female of the category (supra) is not available physically challenged male could be considered who too at the last priority. In the instant case, finding has been recorded by the appellate authority that respondent-4 was one of the female applicant being available as such her candidature was supposed to be considered. It has also been observed by the appellate authority in its order impugned that if there was no such female applicant available, it was duty of the selection committee to invite applications from other female applicants working in Gram Panchayat being eligible for the post with the object to give appointment on the post of Education Motivator to promote females and while laying down the policy the Government might be of the view that if females are appointed looking to nature of duties being discharged of the post in a better and efficient way and being a policy decision of the Government is not open for this Court to review such decision and if that be so there was no occasion for the committee to recommend name of the petitioner since, as alleged in reply to writ petition, the petitioner being nephew of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat and that being so it appears to be a reason to give him appointment and there appears to be no justification available to approve selection which was made by the selection committee in recommending name of the petitioner. 9. Before parting with the judgment counsel for petitioner submitted that fresh applications are being invited by the authority regarding appointment on the post of Prerak wherein secondary is the minimum qualification but he could not submit application in absence of any order being passed by this Court. 10. 9. Before parting with the judgment counsel for petitioner submitted that fresh applications are being invited by the authority regarding appointment on the post of Prerak wherein secondary is the minimum qualification but he could not submit application in absence of any order being passed by this Court. 10. Suffice it to say that selection which the respondent intend to initiate regarding appointment on the post of Prerak in various 32 districts except Kota to fulfil the literacy mission object 2012, the petitioner is always at liberty to submit application if eligible but since there is no such controversy before this Court regarding his eligibility, this Court refrains to make any observation in this regard. 11. This Court having gone through the material on record does not find any manifest error being committed while passing the order impugned. 12. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******