Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1072 (MP)

Murarilal Shivhare v. State of M. P.

2005-10-17

RAJENDRA MENON

body2005
ORDER 1. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Guruji in the Education Guarantee Centre Adiwasipura, Village Gharsondi, Tahsil Bhitarwar, District Gwalior and feels aggrieved by non-payment of homorarium to him from April 2002 so also the resolution dated 30.7.2002 passed by Gram Panchayat treating the petitioner to be the second Guruji and confering the title of first Guruji to respondent No.5. 2. State Government had formulated a scheme called the Education Gurantee Scheme for eradicating illiteracy and providing education to the children in the age group of 6 to 14 years. The aforesaid scheme has been formulated under the Rajeev Gandhi Shishka Mission. Copy of the scheme is annexure P- 1. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to the aforesaid scheme resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat and the resolution was forwarded to the concerned authority on 17.4.1997 vide annexure P-2 recommending the name of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 for appointment as Guruji. According to the petitioner for the Centre in Adiwasipura his name was placed at S.No. 1 and, therefore, he is appointed as first Guruji and respondent No.5 is appointed as second Guruji. Further it is stated that now by another resolution dated 30.7.2002 he is being treated as second it Guruji and the services are likely to be terminated treating him to be the second Guruji. Inter alia contending that the resolution changing the status of the petitioner from first Guruji to second Guruji is illegal and he is entitled to honorarium which remains unpaid since April, 2002 petitioner has filed this petition seeking the aforesaid relief. 3. Inviting any attention to a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in WP 1075/2002 [Harishankar and others v. State of M.P. and others] Shri J.D. Suryavanshi argued that proposal to terminate the srevices of the petitioner treating him to be a second Guruji is illegal and in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench on 11.9.2003 in the case of Harishankar (supra) this petition be allowed and petitioner be directed to be continued as first Guruji. 4. Respondents have refuted the aforesaid. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents to the effect that petitioner has a efficacious remedy of settling the action by filing an appeal or the revision under the Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and this petition filed by suppressing material facts is unsustainable. 4. Respondents have refuted the aforesaid. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents to the effect that petitioner has a efficacious remedy of settling the action by filing an appeal or the revision under the Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and this petition filed by suppressing material facts is unsustainable. According to the respondents, Gram Sabha initially passed a resolution and forwarded the same to the competent authority indicating the name of the petitioner and respondent No.5. However, in the resolution it was not clear as to who is to be appointed as first Guruji and who is to be appointed as second Guruji. Matter was referred back to Panchayat vide letter dated 27.3.2002 and Panchayat was directed to clarify as to who is proposed to be appointed as first Guruji and who is to be appointed as second Guruji. Accordingly, the matter was placed before Gram Sabha and the Gram Sabha passed a resolution on 30.7.2002 approving the respondent No.5 as first Guruji and petitioner as second Guruji. By bringing on record resolutions dated 30.7.2002 and 30.10.2002 passed by Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat respectively Shri D.P. Singh argued that petitioner has filed this petition by suppressing all these material facts and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief in the matter. That apart, pointing various irregularities committed by the petitioner and placing reliance on the inquiry report annexure if R-4 respondents contend that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit claimed by him in this petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records it is clear that initially the Gram Panchayat forwarded a resolution for appointment of four persons as Guruji for the Centre in Dodaopura and Adiwasipura. For both these Centres two names were forwarded as is evident from annexure P-2 dated 17.4.1997. As the resolutions forwarded were not indicating the fact as to who is the first Guruji and who is the second Guruji and as the second Guruji as per the scheme has to be a lady candidate, matter was referred by the competent authority to the Gram Panchayat for clarification by his letter dated 27.3.2002. As the resolutions forwarded were not indicating the fact as to who is the first Guruji and who is the second Guruji and as the second Guruji as per the scheme has to be a lady candidate, matter was referred by the competent authority to the Gram Panchayat for clarification by his letter dated 27.3.2002. When the aforesaid letter was received by the Gram Panchayat matter was placed before it the Gram Sabha on 30.7.2002 and resolution Annexure R-4-5 was passed by the Gram Sabha and it was indicated in this resolution that respondent No.5 Dhannendra Singh should be treated as first Guruji looking to his merit and as no application from any lady candidate for appointment as second Guruji is received up to the date of passing of the resolution it was recommended that petitioner be treated as second Guruji, This resolution dated 30.7.2002 passed by the Gram Sabha was accepted by the Panchayat and approved in its meeting held on 30.10.2002 vide Annexure R-4-6 and accordingly the orders if have been issued treating respondent No.5 if to be the first Guruji on the basis of the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha and approved by the Gram Panchayat. The aforesaid action taken in the matter of appointing respondent No.5 as first Guruji and designating the petitioner as second Guruji is perfectly in order and there is nothing on record to indicate that the same is arbitrary, illegal or vitiated by any malafides or contrary to any statutory rules, regulations or the scheme Annexure P-1. Contention of the petitioner that he has been appointed as first Guruji and the aforesaid appointment has been changed by resolution dated 30.7.2002 is not borne out from the records. On the contrary records indicate that the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha and approved by the Gram Panchayat was to treat the petitioner as Guruji No.2. 6. Accordingly, I find no ground to interfere in the matter of passing of the resolution challenged by the petitioner in this petition. 7. The judgment in the case of Harishankar (supra) relied upon by Shri J.D. Suryavanshi is clearly distinguishable. 6. Accordingly, I find no ground to interfere in the matter of passing of the resolution challenged by the petitioner in this petition. 7. The judgment in the case of Harishankar (supra) relied upon by Shri J.D. Suryavanshi is clearly distinguishable. That was a case where certain persons were appointed as second Guruji and on the basis of notification issued by the State Government action was taken to terminate the service of these Gurujis on the ground that only a woman it candidate can be appointed as second Guruji. It was found by the Division Bench that as the committee which approved the appointment of those petitioners as second Guruji was headed by the District Collector and the appointment was made by the District Level EGC Committee, petitioner who had worked if for six years on the post of second Guruji cannot be terminated in such a manner. Finding removal of the petitioner on the basis of subsequent notification to be incorrect, interference was made by the Division Bench in the said case. Facts of the present case and the said case are entirely different. In the present case the resolution itself passed by the Gram Panchayat on the basis of resolution passed by the Gram Sabha is to treat the petitioner as second Guruji and petitioner is being treated as second Guruji by the aforesaid notification. Thereafter, in case petitioner's services have been terminated the same is not challenged by the petitioner in these proceedings and against the order of termination petitioner has a remedy of filing appeal or revision under the Panchayats (Appeal and Revision ) Rules. In this petition as challenge is only made to resolution dated 30.7.2002 treating the petitioner to be second Guruji and finding no ground to interfere in the matter of passing of the aforesaid resolution for the reasons indicated hereinabove no case for interference into the same is made out. 8. As far as payment of honorarium of the petitioner is concerned, it is directed that in case petitioner has discharged his duties then respondent No.2 Nodal Officer and District Education Officer shall cause an inquiry into the matter and direct for payment of honorarium to the petitioner for the work performed by him. 9. 8. As far as payment of honorarium of the petitioner is concerned, it is directed that in case petitioner has discharged his duties then respondent No.2 Nodal Officer and District Education Officer shall cause an inquiry into the matter and direct for payment of honorarium to the petitioner for the work performed by him. 9. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere in the matter of passing of resolution dated 30.7.2002 petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations with regard to payment of honorarium. 10. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.