Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 191 (MP)

Trilokchand v. State of M. P.

2005-02-08

N.K.MODY

body2005
ORDER 1. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 9.2.2002 on the post of Guruji under M.P. Education Guarantee Scheme. In compliance of the order of appointment, the petitioner joined on 11.2.2002. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.6.2002 on the ground that the petitioner is a resident of village Dahivar and is related to Up Sarpanch. Show cause notice was duly replied on 27.6.2002. On 20.8.2002, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dharmpuri has issued a letter to the Sarpanch to cancel the appointmen1 of the petitioner. Thereafter, again or 1.9.2002, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the same ground, which was duly replied on 3.9.2002. A resolution was passed by Gram Panchayat, Dahivar wherein it was resolved that the services of the petitioner shall be continued. Inspite of that, vide order dated 31.12.2002 (Annexure P-14), the petitioner was discontinued from the post of Guruji against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, District Dhar which has been dismissed vide order dated 26.6.2003. The order was further challenged before the Commissioner Indore Division, which was dismissed on 26.7.2003. Since the revision petition was not heard on merits, therefore the petitioner also approached this Court in W.P. No. 2266/03, which was disposed of vide order dated 2.12.2003 with a direction to the Commissioner, Indore Division Indore, to decide the revision on merits Vide order dated 24.7.2004 (Annexure P-18), the revision petition was dismissed on merits. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition is filed. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the show cause notice it was alleged that since the petitioner is not a resident of village Vasuniapura/Mangbaida and is resident of Dahivar while the appointment was to be mad from that place only. Further reason for removal of the petitioner is that petitioner is in close relation of Up Sarpanch, while as per the Scheme, no appointment could have been made on the post of Guruji of near relative of any office bearer of the Gram Panchayat. Further reason for removal of the petitioner is that petitioner is in close relation of Up Sarpanch, while as per the Scheme, no appointment could have been made on the post of Guruji of near relative of any office bearer of the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relevant guidelines for the purpose of appointment of Guruji under the Scheme are as under: ^^xq:th dks ml gh xzke@Vksys dk fuoklh gksuk pkfg, tgkW ls bZ-th-,l- dh ekWx vkbZ gSA ;kfn ml xzke@Vksys dsa ;ksx; O;fDr ugha feyrk gS rks ml xzke iapk;r {ks= ls xq:th dk p;u fd;k tk ldrk gS ij fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa xzke iapk;r ds ckgj ls xq:th ugha fy;k tkuk gSA^^ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a reading of this Scheme it is clear that the appointment of Guruji has to be made from that village only for which the appointment has to be made and if the candidate is not available from that village/total, then the selection has to be made from that very Gram Panchayat and in any case no appointments can be made from outside. It was submitted that since the petitioner is resident of Gram Panchayat Dahivar, therefore, the petitioner was eligible and the petitioner could not have been removed on that ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 2002 SC 2877 [Kailash Chand Sharma etc. v. State of Rajasthan] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "Residence within a district or rural areas of that district could not be a valid basis for classification for the purpose of public employment. The argument in favour of such reservation which has the overtones of parochialism is liable to be rejected on the plain terms of Art. 16 (2) and in the light of Art. 16 (3). An argument of this nature flies in the face of the peremptory language of Art. 16 (2) and runs counter to our Constitutional ethos founded on unit and integrity of the nation. Residence by itself -- be it within a State, region district or lesser area within a district cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation save a provided in Art. 16 (3). Residence by itself -- be it within a State, region district or lesser area within a district cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation save a provided in Art. 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." 4. Further contention of the petitioner is that the Chief Executive Officer who has passed the order of termination (Annexure P-14), was having no jurisdiction. It is submitted that as per M.P. Education Guarantee Scheme, if the villagers an aggrieved by the order of Gram Panchayat then the appeal can be preferred before the Chief Executive Officer. From this, it is clear that the Chief Executive Officer is the appellate authority. 5. In view of the fact that service of the petitioner has been terminated only on the ground that the petitioner is not a resident of the same village, the order passed by the Collector, Annexure P-14, is set aside. All consequential order passed in appeal and revision are also set aside with a direction that the petitioner shall be reinstated on the post of Guruji with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.