ORDER : All the Counsel agrees that the matter may be decided finally at this stage. Therefore, the case has been heard finally. Taking into consideration that the matter relates to selections for which there is an interim order restraining the State from opening the result of the advertisement while admitting the writ petition by the coordinate Bench of this Court. 2. Heard Counsels at length. 3. Writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners challenging the criteria which have been laid down through instructions issued by the State Government for the purpose of selection for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak on various counts. The post of Gram Panchayat Sahyak has been notified vide gazette Notification dated 02.11.2016 wherein Rule 258 of the Rajasthan Panchyati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’) was amended by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016 and following new sub-rule (3) was added as under : - “(3) Panchayat may appoint any person as Gram Panchayat Sahayak, on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis, for Panchayat Office or for any other work with prior permission of the Chief Executive Officer. He shall be paid from the grant received for the purpose from the State Government on recommendation of the State Finance Commission or out of own income of the Panchayat.” 4. As for the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions, Rule 258 of the Rules of 1996 as it existed prior to the aforesaid amendment is also being quoted : “258. Categories of posts : (1) There shall be the following categories of posts to be appointed in Panchaya Samitis and Zila Parishads : (a) State Service posts : (i) Chief Executive Officer (ii) Vikas Adhikari (iii) Accounts Officer (iv) Assistant Engineers (v) and such other categories of posts as are prescribed by the Government from time to time. (b) Subordinate Service : (i) Extension Officer (Panchayat, Education, Co-operative, Progress.) (ii) Assistant Accounts Officer. (iii) Accountant/Junior Accountant. (iv) Junior Engineer. (c) Ministerial Service : (Ministerial and subordinate posts in Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad service) (i) Upper Division Clerks including UDC-cum-Steno. (ii) Lower Division Clerks including Typists. (iii) Drivers. (iv) Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers]. (v) Village Level Worker-cum-Secretary Panchayat. (vi) Fitter. (vii) Hand pump Mistry.] 5. (iii) Accountant/Junior Accountant. (iv) Junior Engineer. (c) Ministerial Service : (Ministerial and subordinate posts in Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad service) (i) Upper Division Clerks including UDC-cum-Steno. (ii) Lower Division Clerks including Typists. (iii) Drivers. (iv) Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers]. (v) Village Level Worker-cum-Secretary Panchayat. (vi) Fitter. (vii) Hand pump Mistry.] 5. Submissions of the petitioners are that they are candidates who want to apply for the said post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak but on account of the guidelines which have been issued by the State Government, they apprehend that their selections may not be done on the said post. They have manifold grievances which in short are: - “(a) that the State Government has not laid down any criteria for selection for the said post; (b) Interview based selections could not have been made; (c) Selection criteria of candidate to be a resident of the district in which the concerned Gram Panchayat is situated is unjustified; (d) The element of transparency in selection is not there and the experience criteria which has been laid down is vague and does not satisfy as to the authority who would be the competent person to issue the experience certificate. (e) That there is no reservation policy applied for the filling up of the posts. (f) The posts of Gram Panchayat Sahayak ought to be filled as per the Rules of 1996 and could not have been filled without following the Rules.” 6. Counsel for the petitioners have laid much emphasis on the criteria of selection and submit that interview based selections could not have been made. In support thereof, the Counsel for the petitioners relies upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Minor A.Peeriakaruppan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.: 1971 (1) SCC 38 . He also relies on the directions made by this Court passed in Surendra Kumar Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 03.04.2017 wherein clause (c) of directions which reads as under:- “(c) The State Government is further directed to make appointments on the posts created under various schemes sponsored by State or by the Centre on contract basis or otherwise only by conducting selection through open advertisement and after inviting applications and conducting written examinations and selecting persons on merit basis by a transparent method. For the said purpose, the State Government may lay down procedure and a recruiting agency either department wise or a Central nodal agency may be created for the said purpose keeping in view the provisions laid down for conducting public examinations. However, there shall be no interviews method followed in order to avoid any room for arbitrariness or pick and choose method and subsequent litigation;” 7. Counsel for the petitioners also relies on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others :(2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 172 wherein in para 12, 16 & 17 it has been observed by the Supreme Court as under : - “12. With regard to the first point, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench holds that full effect of the result would be given only after verification of the testimonials, certificates and documents mentioned in the application and mere publication of the selection list on 31.11.2001 did not result in accrual of any right in favour of the candidates, whose names had found place in the select list. Relying on the judgment of this Court in IJ Diwakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1982) SC 1555 and Shankarsan Das v. Union of India, AIR (1991) SC 1612, and the statement made by the Chief Standing counsel on behalf of the State made at the Bar, the Division Bench held that even though the candidates, whose names appeared in the select list, were not made parties to the writ petitions, the writ petitions could not be summarily dismissed on the said ground. We are inclined to agree with this finding of the Division Bench, which is supported by the authority of the Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (supra) and several other judgments of this Court. 16. The Division Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that the merit list could not be prepared on districtwise basis and that restricting the selection and preparation of merit list at the district level was not justified and amounted to discrimination. It was also found that though at one stage the State government had decided to prepare the merit list on the State level, it was suddenly changed to the district level and the reasons advanced for the sudden change were found to be wholly irrelevant and unjustified. It was also found that though at one stage the State government had decided to prepare the merit list on the State level, it was suddenly changed to the district level and the reasons advanced for the sudden change were found to be wholly irrelevant and unjustified. The action of the State government in restoring the preparation of merit list from State level to district level was held arbitrary and violative of Articles 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The High Court has referred and relied on a number of judgment of this Court which have frowned upon recruitment on the basis of criteria restricted to candidates from specified local areas. 17. Although a feeble attempt was made by the counsel on behalf of the State respondents that different districts have different dialects and therefore, it would be necessary to restrict the selection to candidates conversant and fluent in those regional dialects, we are not satisfies that adequate material was presented to the High Court on the basis of which this distinction could have been justified. In the first place, there was no material to indicate that dialects vary from district to district. Consequently, there was no material to indicate that a candidate from one district was no likely to be familiar with the dialect of another district for which he applied for training. There was also no material placed on record to indicate that training was to be in local dialect for the local school only. Finally, if the emphasis is really on the regional dialect, nothing prevented the State government from making the knowledge of a specified regional dialect as preferential criterion for recruitment. For these reasons, we agree with the view taken by the Division Bench on this issue and hold that restriction of the selection and preparation of merit list at the district level was arbitrary and violative of Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution.” 8. Counsel for the petitioners also stress on the Condition relating to restriction of candidates to participate in the selection from that particular district and relies on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan : (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 562 wherein it has been held in para 13, 27 and 28 as under : - “13. State of Rajasthan : (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 562 wherein it has been held in para 13, 27 and 28 as under : - “13. Before proceeding further we should steer clear of a misconception that surfaced in the course of arguments advanced on behalf of the State and some of the parties. Based on the decisions which countenanced geographical classification for certain weighty reasons such as socioeconomic backwardness of the area for the purpose of admissions to professional colleges, it has been suggested that residence within a district or rural areas of that district could be a valid basis for classification for the purpose of public employment as well. We have no doubt that such a sweeping argument which has the overtones of parochialism is liable to be rejected on the plain terms of Article 16(2) and in the light of Art. 16(3). An argument of this nature flies in the face of the peremptory language of Article 16 (2) and runs counter to our constitutional ethos founded on unity and integrity of the nation. Attempts to prefer candidates of a local area in the State were nipped in the bud by this Court since long past. We would like to reiterate that residence by itself be it be within a State, region, district or lesser area within a district cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation, save as provided in Article 16(3). It is not possible to compartmentalize the State into Districts with a view to offer employment to the residents of that District on a preferential basis. At this juncture it is appropriate to undertake a brief analysis of Article 16. 27. These observations, in our view, cannot be legitimately pressed into service for the purpose of justifying reservation or weightage in favour of rural candidates on the ground of nativity/residence for purposes of public employment. The difference in approach in relation to Articles 15 and 16 was indicated by Bhagwati, J. in Pradeep Jain's case and we have quoted the relevant passage extensively. It was made clear in Pradeep Jain's case that in the matter of admissions to professional colleges the considerations were different. As far as public employment is concerned, the classification on the basis of residence in a region or locality was broadly held to be constitutionally impermissible. It was made clear in Pradeep Jain's case that in the matter of admissions to professional colleges the considerations were different. As far as public employment is concerned, the classification on the basis of residence in a region or locality was broadly held to be constitutionally impermissible. Moreover, the preferential treatment of rural candidates in the instant case is not on the ground that they hail from the backward region. All or most of the villages in the district or the State cannot be presumed to be backward educationally or economically. Such a claim was not accepted in Pradip Tandon's case by the three Judge Bench. Even in Nidamarti's case, it was held that in absence of material, certain regions cannot be dubbed as backward. 28. The justifiability of the plea stemming from the premise that uplifting the rural people is an affirmative action to improve their lot can be tested from the concrete situation which confronts us in the present cases. We are here concerned with the selections to the posts of teachers of primary schools, the minimum qualification being SSC coupled with basic training course in teaching. Can the Court proceed on the assumption that the candidates residing in the town areas with their education in the schools or colleges located in the towns or its peripheral areas stand on a higher pedestal than the candidates who had studied in the rural area schools or colleges? Is the latter comparatively a disadvantaged and economically weaker segment when compared to the former? We do not think so. The aspirants for the teachers jobs in primary schools be they from rural area or town area do not generally belong to affluent class. Apparently they come from the lower middle class or poor background. By and large, in the pursuit of education, they suffer and share the same handicaps as their fellow citizens in rural areas. It cannot be said that the applicants from nonrural areas have access to best of the schools and colleges which the well to do class may have. Apparently they come from the lower middle class or poor background. By and large, in the pursuit of education, they suffer and share the same handicaps as their fellow citizens in rural areas. It cannot be said that the applicants from nonrural areas have access to best of the schools and colleges which the well to do class may have. Further, without any data, it is not possible to presume that the schools and colleges located in the towns- small or big-and their peripheral areas are much better qualitatively, that is to say, from the point of view of teaching standards or infrastructure facilities so as to give an edge to the town candidates over the rural candidates.” 9. It is submitted that once the post is encadered under the Rules of 1996, the Rule of 1996 will operate for the purpose of selection. 10. Learned Counsel has also taken to Rule 265 to show that there is an age criteria laid down under the Rules of 1996 which requires to be adhered to for the purpose of selection. However, the age criteria has been differently mentioned in the advertisements which has been issued by the panchayat and thus, the advertisement and selections being conducted are illegal, unjustified and contrary to Rule 265 of the Rules of 1996. Learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to experience submits that some reasonable criteria ought to have been published with weightage to the experience gained by the candidates who have been working on similar posts in various schemes of the State Government. However, as the experience certificate clause mentioned in the advertisement, does not mention specifically about a particular experience certificate, it is wholly vague and would leave doubt in minds of candidates as to what experience is being taken into consideration for the purpose of selection. The criteria of interview, it is submitted ought to lay down different weightage for different parts which would include for experience as well as for other qualifications but such criteria have not been published and for want of knowledge of such criteria, there would be a lot of room available for arbitrariness in selection. 11. The criteria of interview, it is submitted ought to lay down different weightage for different parts which would include for experience as well as for other qualifications but such criteria have not been published and for want of knowledge of such criteria, there would be a lot of room available for arbitrariness in selection. 11. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State states that the posts which have been notified under the Notification dated 02.11.2016 and incorporated as part of Rule 258(3) is not an encadred posts under the Panchayati Raj Rules, mentioning of the said posts and the Rules of 1996 by the amendment was to empower the panchayat to appoint any person as Gram Panchayat Sahayak on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis. The selection of said Gram Panchayat Sahayak is not to be understood as a regular selection. It is further stated that the State has only laid down guidelines for the concerned panchayats to follow so that there can be a general similar appointment criteria of selection for the 9887 Gram Panchayats in all over the Rajasthan. Since the post is essentially meant for a particular panchayat in a particular district, the criteria of resident of that particular district who may apply to that particular panchayat has been laid down. More so, when the selections are to be made on a particular date alone for all the panchayats and a candidate can only apply at a particular panchayat for the purpose of appointment for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak. This is so considering that there are linguistic regions in Rajasthan and the purpose for appointment of Gram Panchayat Sahayak is exclusively for that particular Gram Panchayat to help in the regular day to day working of Gram Panchayat for which a funding is being done at the level of State Finance Commission to the Gram Panchayat so that there may be a proper utilization of the funds. A post has been created at the particular Gram Panchayat and thus the decision to allow a candidate to apply in his own residential area is rational and has a purpose sought to be achieved and on that count, therefore, the guidelines which have been issued cannot be said to be invalid. 12. A post has been created at the particular Gram Panchayat and thus the decision to allow a candidate to apply in his own residential area is rational and has a purpose sought to be achieved and on that count, therefore, the guidelines which have been issued cannot be said to be invalid. 12. Next submission relating to the interview as a basis for selection, as advanced by the learned Counsel is that since the selection is left for a Gram Panchayat to conduct a general examination of all over Rajasthan level or district level, was neither required nor tenable rather it would have amounted to amendment in the rule taking away right of Gram Panchayat and defeat the purpose of Rule 258(3). Moreover, the appointment is on part time/fixed honorarium/contract basis for a period of only one year which has been included in the Rules of 258(3) hence criteria of interview cannot be faulted. Further it is stated that the reservation policy would also not apply as the maximum number of posts which have been allotted to a Gram Panchayat are only four in number and reservation under direct recruitment is available if there are vacancies of more than six posts in number as per 100 point roster system and, therefore, the submission of the Counsel regarding not following reservation policy is misconceived and would not apply to such selections which are only for one year on honorarium/contractual basis. It is stated that as the selection cannot come within the meaning of direct recruitment as laid down, in Rule 259, it cannot be said that the selection is a method of direct recruitment as envisaged under Rule 265 and, therefore, the age criteria in Rules of 1996 would not apply to the contractual/honorarium appointments of Gram Panchayat Sahayak. The post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak has not been encadered under the Schedule and direct recruitment as mentioned under the Rules relates to the posts under Schedule. The post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak has not been encadered under the Schedule and direct recruitment as mentioned under the Rules relates to the posts under Schedule. It is also pointed out that new sub-rule (8) of Rule 259 was also added by way of an amendment dated 02.11.2016 which reads as under : - “(8) Selection for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis shall be made by Gram Sabha in the manner as may be laid down by the State Government, from time to time.” The same was amended further vide Notification dated 25.01.2017 which reads as under : Amendment of Rule 259.- In rule 259 of the said rules- (i) In sub-rule (8), the existing expression “by Gram Sabha” shall be deleted ; and (ii) After sub-rule (8), so amended, the following new sub-rule (9) shall added namely: - “(9) Any officer of the School Education Department shall be declared as ex-officio Panchayat Elementary Education Officer by the School Education Department.” Thus, the selection for the said post is totally different from what has been envisaged in the regular Rules of 1996 and has to be differently understood. So far as experience certificate part is concerned, it is stated that all the experience certificates which the candidates would submit relating to the government service or any other service, would be examined by the concerned panchayat at the time of interview. However, the criteria has to be solely laid down by the concerned Selection Committee of the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, a general guideline to Gram Panchayats for fixing a strict criteria of interview by allocating marks for different faculties like A, B, C & D etc. has not been laid down since the selection is not being done at the State level or district level. 13. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, this Court finds that the nature and manner of selection for the said post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak carve out separately under the Rules of 1996. By way of an amendment dated 2.11.1996, a separate rules for the said post have been framed. Thus, the criteria for the said post cannot be equated to the criteria for selection of encadered post under the Rules of 1996 and no parity can be drawn between the same. By way of an amendment dated 2.11.1996, a separate rules for the said post have been framed. Thus, the criteria for the said post cannot be equated to the criteria for selection of encadered post under the Rules of 1996 and no parity can be drawn between the same. More so, when the post is not of permanent nature. It is to be of either on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis as per the Notification dated 2.11.1996. As has been informed by the learned Counsel for the respondents, presently, appointment is only made for one year which is on the basis of grant received from the State Finance Commission. In the circumstances, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners for an adopting a criteria akin to the criteria as laid down for the other post under the Rules of 1996 cannot be accepted. 14. The requirement of being resident of a particular district for the purpose of participating in the selection for a particular Gram Panchayat of the district, is as per the submissions raised at bar cannot be faulted. Once a candidate has to apply at a particular place and can participate in an interview only at a particular place while selections are being conducted all over Rajasthan on one day, such a criteria cannot be said to be irrational. To declare an action as irrational, the purpose sought to be achieved has to be looked into if there is a nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved decision has to be taken as rational and justified. There cannot be said to be any arbitrariness in a decision for selection an individual for the purpose of Gram Panchayat Sahayak especially when the post is to be filled by the said panchayat itself and not by another other body. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Shama (supra) was with relation to post which was to be filled by the State Government for all over Rajasthan and not by the body of a particular panchayat. In such circumstances, taking into consideration that applications were being received from all the candidates from all over Rajasthan, granting of bonus marks to a candidate from a particular district was held to be bad, such is not the situation in the present case. In such circumstances, taking into consideration that applications were being received from all the candidates from all over Rajasthan, granting of bonus marks to a candidate from a particular district was held to be bad, such is not the situation in the present case. It is settled law that law laid down by the Apex Court has to be applied to in the facts and circumstances of each case individually. A slight difference of facts changes the entire scenario and, therefore, in view of this Court, the law laid down in Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) would not apply to the present case. Similarly the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) would also not apply as the teachers were being selected for the entire State of Uttar Pradesh and not for a particular district. 15. This Court is also conscious of the directions issued in the case of Surendra Kumar Gurjar (supra) authored by me where directions were issued relating to the various schemes which are being run by the State Government. Admittedly, if the selections were being done by the State Government at their level, the criteria of selection as directed in Surendra Kumar Gurjar (supra) would have applied. However, when it comes to making part time/fixed honorarium/contract basis appointment at the level of panchayat for the purpose of that panchayat alone, criteria should be left to that panchayat alone for selecting on basis of interview provided there is a criteria which the concerned panchayat lays down for selection. If somebody has a particular grievance relating to his/her selection on the ground of bias or otherwise, he or she may have a remedy available in law and a general rule would not apply that the selections cannot be made on interview basis. This Court in the case of Usha Sharma Vs. State : (2007(4) WLC 41) held that State has a power to make selections on 100% interview basis. The law as cited by the learned Counsel in the case Minor A. Peeriakaruppan (supra) was all considered and I would not like to burden further this judgment with the sad cases. 16. This Court in the case of Usha Sharma Vs. State : (2007(4) WLC 41) held that State has a power to make selections on 100% interview basis. The law as cited by the learned Counsel in the case Minor A. Peeriakaruppan (supra) was all considered and I would not like to burden further this judgment with the sad cases. 16. This Court is also satisfied that the reservation criteria would not apply in view of the fact that the selections are of a limited post which are less than four in number and the same is not for a particular year. Thus, it is noted that for a selection on regular posts reservation policy of the State Government is essential. It may also apply in some cases relating to adhoc appointments when the adhoc appointments are likely to continue for years together. In another SBCW No.2413/2017; Dr. Ambedkar Schedule Anusoochit Jai Adhikari-Karamachari (AJAK) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 17.02.2017, this Court has already taken a view that reservation would not apply to the Gram Panchayat Sahayak selection, the order of this Court has also been upheld by the Division Bench. 17. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the respondent-State Government should be allowed to go further with the selection for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak at the respective Gram Panchayat level, for which interviews have already been held. Selections be now made and appointments be given as per the criteria which has been laid down by the State Government and approved hereinabove. 18. The writ petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.