Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 157 (MP)

Satyanarayan Dave v. State of M. P.

2005-02-02

S.K.SETH

body2005
ORDER 1. This review petition is directed against the order dated 1.1.2000 passed by the learned Member of State Administrative Tribunal in OA No 1021/1997 whereby the said OA filed by the applicant was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that the applicant had not established that he possesses necessary educational qualification for being absorbed as Gram Sahayak. Hence, the present review application. Notice of the review application was issued to the respondents by the learned Member of the Tribunal vide order dated 4.2.2000. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter has been transferred to this Court under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Prashasnik Adhikaran (Lambit Evam Nirakrat Avedano Ka Antaran Adhyadesh, 2003 and that is how the matter has come up for hearing before this Court. 2. Applicant came out with a case that as per the resolution dated 5.12.1996 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Amla, the applicant is working as a part-time Secretary. The Dy. Director/District Panchayat & Social Welfare Officer Ujjain, behind the back of the applicant approved his appointment for the post of LDC Copy of the said order was filed as Annexure A-6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the copy of the said order was not endorsed to the applicant and, therefore, he was unaware and he continued to work on the post of part-time Secretary ('Sahayak Sachiv'). No sooner the applicant learnt about the absorption of other similarly situated persons in Government service as Gram Sahayak, he made representations, but the respondents refused to consider the case of the applicant holding that the applicant has become the 'Panchayat Karmi' and the cadre of the Gram Sahayak is a dying cadre. Hence, petitioner preferred the original application. By the order impugned, learned Member of the Tribunal rejected the application holding that the claim of the petitioner is highly belated and he failed to establish that ht possesses the requisite educational qualification for being absorbed as Gram Sahayak. Hence, present review application. 3. According to learned counsel for applicant submitted that the delay cannot be attributed to the applicant and the Tribunal erred in coming to the said conclusion without considering the material available on record. Hence, present review application. 3. According to learned counsel for applicant submitted that the delay cannot be attributed to the applicant and the Tribunal erred in coming to the said conclusion without considering the material available on record. As regards second ground, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the learned Member has made out a new case which was not pleaded by either of the parties Thus, according to Shri Sethi, learned counsel for applicant, the order is erroneous on the face of the record and deserves to be reviewed. 4. Per contra, Shri Bhatnagar, learned Government Advocate, supported the order and said that it does not warrant any review. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the material available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, this review petition deserves to be allowed Apparently, learned Member while, deciding the OA erroneously gave finding that the applicant failed to show that he possesses requisite educational qualification which is required for being absorbed as Gram Sahayak. This is no even the case of the respondents. Similarly, the Tribunal erred in attributing the delay to the applicant. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion this review petition is allowed. The order dated 1.1.2000 passed in OA No 1021/1997 is hereby recalled and set aside Office is directed to restore the said OA to its original number and thereafter, list the matter for orders on merit before the appropriate Bench as per the roster. With the aforesaid, this MCC stands disposed of Let a copy of this order be retained in the file of OA No. 1021/1997. No order as to costs.