Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 423 (MP)

Panchhu Singh Watia v. State of M. P.

2001-05-15

S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2001
ORDER 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.10.2000 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat, Mawai, by which the said Panchayat has directed cancellation of the appointment of the three petitioners who were appointed as second 'Gutuji' in Education Guarantee Centres at Ounrai, Jaitpuri and Badi Paundi within the area of Gram Panchayat Basni, Meda and Paundi Baharmunda, respectively. Learned Panel Advocate has raised a preliminary objection about the availability of the remedy of appeal under section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules called the M.P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 framed thereunder. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since in the Education Guarantee Scheme no specific revision for appeal was made against such orders, he has filed this petition. The question with regard to the remedy of the appeal against the orders passed by the Panchayats under the Education Guarantee Scheme had come up before this Court in Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of M.P. [WP No. 229 of 2001 decided on 9.4.2001] and after referring to the power of the State Government under section 53 of the Act to entrust to all Panchayats the scheme in relation to the matters listed in Schedule IV, it was held that such a scheme has the force of law. Reference was also made to an earlier decision of this Court in Kishanlal Kushwaha v. State of M.P. [ 2001 (1) MPHT 360 ] and it was held that orders passed under the Scheme are also referable to the order under the• Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and are subject to the provisions of Appeal and Revision under section the said Appeal and Revision Rules. Learned counsel submits that because he was pursuing this remedy, the period of 30 days to file such appeal against such orders has expired and, therefore, the said remedy has become time barred. Since the petitioner was pursuing the remedy in this petition as there was no specific provision made in the Education Guarantee Scheme, the petitioners deserve to be granted an opportunity to approach the appellate authority which has also power under Rule 4 (2) to admit an appeal even after the prescribed period of limitation. Since the petitioner was pursuing the remedy in this petition as there was no specific provision made in the Education Guarantee Scheme, the petitioners deserve to be granted an opportunity to approach the appellate authority which has also power under Rule 4 (2) to admit an appeal even after the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly the petitioners are granted liberty to file as appeal before the authority concerned within 30 days from the date of this order and if any appeal is filed before the aforesaid period, the authority shall not dismiss it as barred by limitation. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.