Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 800 (MP)

Shivanand Bharti v. State of M. P.

2003-06-30

A.K.MISHRA

body2003
JUDGMENT Petitioner in this writ petition is assailing the orders P-1 dated 26.11.2002 and P-2 dated 23.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner, reviewing the earlier order allowing the appeal which was filed by the petitioner. With respect to appointment of pujari of Shiv Mandir, Dev Talab, Tahsil Mauganj, district Rewa, SDO, Mauganj, District Rewa initiated proceedings. Five applications were received. Police verification was called upon. Applicants were examined. Report from revenue inspector and Patwari were also called. Opinion of Gram Panchayat was also obtained. Shri Dinesh Kumar Bharti, respondent No.5 was found to be fit for appointment as pujari. His conduct was reported to be good. He was having sufficient knowledge of puja-archana. Revenue Inspector also submitted report in favour of Dinesh Kumar Bharti, respondent No. 5. With respect to Shivanand Bharti, report was sent by the police station Officer-in-charge that the petitioner is not fit as he is hands-in-glove with the sarpanch Sajjan Singh who is under surveillance with the police for his activities. Considering the educational qualification of respondent No. 5 who is 12th class pass, there is no adverse report with the police against the respondent No.5, his appointment was ordered. Petitioner, aggrieved by an order R-1 passed by the SDO on 8.2.1999, preferred an appeal before the Collector, Rewa, and an order R-2 was passed by the Collector, District Rewa, dismissing the appeal. It was specifically found that the respondent No.5 is more suitable as he is possessing better qualification than that of the petitioner Shivanand Bharti. Against dismissal of the appeal, a second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa. Initially, as per order R-3 dated 18.10.2000, the learned Commissioner, without considering the qualification, allowed the appeal and ordered appointment of Shivanand Bharti. Review petition was preferred by the respondent No. 5 before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa. Review was allowed. Order was set aside and the orders passed by the SDO and Collector were held to be proper. As review petition was not separately decided, out rightly, while deciding the review, the order was recalled and matter was finally adjudicated in appeal. No separate orders were passed. Matter travelled to this Court in W.P. No.4444/2002 decided on 28.8.2002. This Court directed the Commissioner to decide the review application first and thereafter to deal with the second appeal, in case order is recalled. No separate orders were passed. Matter travelled to this Court in W.P. No.4444/2002 decided on 28.8.2002. This Court directed the Commissioner to decide the review application first and thereafter to deal with the second appeal, in case order is recalled. Thereafter, the Commissioner has considered review application separately, allowed it as per order P-1 dated 26.11.2002. Order has been recalled on the ground that Shivanand Bharti has obtained education up to 8th whereas Dinesh Kumar Bharti, up to class 12th. Case of Dinesh Kumar Bharti was recommended by most of the panchas and the ground of being grandson was not adopted by the SDO in the order passed for making an appointment of respondent No.5. Thus, two main grounds employed by the Commissioner of allowing the appeal were against the record, as such there was an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the order was recalled. Thereafter, second appeal has been heard afresh and order P-2 has been passed on 23.12.2002. Appeal has been dismissed as per order P-2. Comparative case has been considered. It has been found that the respondent No.5 possessed better qualification than that of the petitioner. Police report was more against Shivanand Bharti. Involvement of Dinesh Kumar Bharti in case u/s 107 which has ended in compromise was not enough to disqualify him. Dinesh Kumar Bharti was having "Sanskrit as a subject" in class 10th also and has passed class 12th, whereas the petitioner has passed class 8th only. Thus, considering the overall circumstances, the orders passed by the SDO and Collector have been affirmed. Orders P-1 and P-2 have been assailed in this writ petition. Petitioner has not assailed the orders passed by the SDO and Collector in the instant writ petition, which is a technical flaw. That apart, the orders P-1 and P-2 are perused. It is clear that the respondent No.5 Dinesh Kumar Bharti has passed class 10th with Sanskrit subject and has also passed class 12th, whereas the qualification of the petitioner is 8th pass only. It is orally stated by Shri P.N. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has passed class 12th, but there is no such averment in the writ petition. Thus, the submission cannot be accepted. On facts, it has been found that the respondent No.5 is better qualified. Other relevant considerations have also been given due regard. It is orally stated by Shri P.N. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has passed class 12th, but there is no such averment in the writ petition. Thus, the submission cannot be accepted. On facts, it has been found that the respondent No.5 is better qualified. Other relevant considerations have also been given due regard. Knowledge of Sanskrit and better qualification is one of the relevant considerations which has prevailed with the SDO, Collector and Commissioner. I find that the previous order was properly reviewed by the Commissioner as the findings recorded by the SDO and Collector were not taken into consideration. Question of qualification was not at all adverted to while passing order P-3 which constituted an error apparent on record as found by the Commissioner in Order P-l. Matter has been heard afresh. Orders passed by the SDO and Collector have been affirmed. I find no infirmity in the orders passed by the SDO, Collector and Commissioner. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.