ORDER : - Petition has been preferred for quashment of appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat Patehra (Mauganj), Janpad Panchayat Hanumana, Distt. Rewa. 2. The Joint Director of Panchayat and Social justice, Rewa Division issued a letter dated 14-8-2007 (Annexure/P-1) directing thereby the Chief Executive Officer of various Janpad Panchayats including Janpad Panchayat Hanumana to ensure appointment of Panchayat Karmi in various Gram Panchayats within their respective jurisdiction. Pursuant thereto Gram Panchayat Patehra (Mauganj) issued advertisement No. 2/Pancha.Karmi/07-08 dated 28-7-2007 inviting thereby applications for the post of Panchayat Karmi during 28-7-2007 and 12-8-2007 upto 5 PM (both inclusive) as contained in Annexure/P-2. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement made an application in due manner on 30-7-2007 and obtained acknowledgment contained in Annexure/P-3. It is alleged that Gram Panchayat, Patehra (Mauganj) on 21-8-2007 passed a resolution selecting thereby respondent No. 5 for the post of Panchayat Karmi without considering the application of the petitioner. Copy of the resolution is on record as Annexure/P-7 which reveals that respondent No. 5 had obtained 40.4% marks in the High School Examination. Petitioner vide his application dated 10-9-2007 (Annexure/P-8) requested under the provisions of Right to Information Act to issue the copies of resolution, list of applications etc. Copies were not supplied by the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Patehra (Mauganj). All the documents were supplied only after necessary directions of C.E.O. vide Annexure/P-9. Thereafter present writ petition could be preferred with the following main reliefs :- (ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the appointment of the respondent No. 5. (iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent to submit the application of the petitioner before gram panchayat meeting and mention the name of the petitioner in proceeding register of the gram panchayat and pass the resolutions in favour of petitioner. 4. Petition is mainly based on the ground that the petitioner having made application for the post of Panchayat Karmi on 28-7-2007 ought to have been considered and he further being meritorious to the other applicants including respondent No. 5 ought to have been appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Patehra (Mauganj). 4. Petition is mainly based on the ground that the petitioner having made application for the post of Panchayat Karmi on 28-7-2007 ought to have been considered and he further being meritorious to the other applicants including respondent No. 5 ought to have been appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Patehra (Mauganj). It is pertinent to note that the Gram Panchayat Patehra (Mauganj) which is being represented by Sarpanch having been impleaded as respondent No. 4 did not choose to submit reply and further did not refute the allegations contained in the writ petition duly supported by affidavit about making application for the post of Panchayat Karmi on 28/30-7-2007. 5. Respondent No. 5 submitted his reply. He alleged that the application for the post of Panchayat Karmi was submitted by the petitioner on 23-8-2007 and not on 30-7-2007 as alleged by him. Acknowledgment contained in Annexure/P-3 is false and fabricated document. Acknowledgment about receipt of the application was issued by the Panchayat Secretary on 23-8-2007. Copy of the application of the petitioner and that of acknowledgment are cumulatively placed on record as Annexure/R-5-1. Panchayat Secretary, namely, Phool Singh submitted an affidavit to the aforesaid effect before the Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Hanumana, Distt.' Rewa. Copy thereof is Annexure/R-5-II petitioner has also given a declaration on 23-8-2007 in support of his application which is part of his application contained in Annexure/R-5-I. In this view of the matter, acknowledgment marked as Annexure/P-3 is clearly a forged, false and fabricated document. Apart from the aforesaid, it has been stated that an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the S.D.O which is pending. Factum of pendency of the appeal has been suppressed deliberately. In view of pendency of the appeal, the writ petition is not maintainable. Thus, it has been averred that the resolution was rightly passed in favour of respondent No. 5 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the parties made their respective submissions. 7. Objection is raised that the petitioner having availed the remedy of appeal is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction, moreso, by suppressing the material fact about pendency of the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the parties made their respective submissions. 7. Objection is raised that the petitioner having availed the remedy of appeal is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction, moreso, by suppressing the material fact about pendency of the appeal. This contention has been countered by the petitioner's learned counsel by saying that Appeal No. 1/A-89/07-08 was preferred against the resolution of Gram Panchayat which was not maintainable in view of provision of Rule 3 of M. P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. He further stated that he would not be pressing the said appeal being not tenable. Secondly, the application of the petitioner for the post of Panchayat Karmi, though submitted within time was not considered by the Gram Panchayat whose action of non-consideration is violative of fundamental rights. Thus, it is submitted that the writ petition deserves to be entertained. 8. It is almost a settled law that Rule 3 of M. P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 provides for an appeal against an order and not against the resolution. This being so, it is indisputably clear that the appeal for quashment of the resolution was not maintainable before the prescribed authority i.e. S.D.O. As regards the breach of fundamental rights, it will have to be examined first that whether the petitioner made an application for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi during the period prescribed by the advertisement. If it is so found, it would be gainsaid that his non-consideration would amount to violation of fundamental rights and the writ petition preferred before this Court would directly be indeed maintainable. 9. The crucial question in the case is whether the petitioner submitted his application for the post of Panchayat Karmi on 30-7-2007 as revealed in Annexure/P-3 or on 23-8-2007 as revealed in Annexure/R-5-I. Clearly, it would have been a factual dispute, normally, not liable to be resolved in writ jurisdiction. However, it is not a trite law that whenever a factual controversy is involved the writ petition should not be entertained at all. It is only when factual controversy cannot be resolved without recording evidence, a writ petition is normally not entertained. By corollary, if a factual dispute may be resolved on the basis of authentic documents, writ petition involving such factual disputes may be entertained. 10. It is only when factual controversy cannot be resolved without recording evidence, a writ petition is normally not entertained. By corollary, if a factual dispute may be resolved on the basis of authentic documents, writ petition involving such factual disputes may be entertained. 10. In the present case, the application for the post of Panchayat Karmi is stated to have been submitted on 30-7-2007. Copy of the acknowledgment is on record as Annexure/P-3 wherein the application is admitted to have been received on 30-7-2007. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have engaged a common advocate but respondent No. 5 alone has submitted his reply along with affidavit. Respondent No. 4 is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Patehra who did not choose to submit the reply and has not dared to refute the allegations contained in the writ petition about receipt of application of the petitioner for the post of Panchayat Karmi on 30-7-2007 and further about issuing the acknowledgment/receipt contained in Annexure/P-3. This obviously may lead to an adverse inference against the Gram Panchayat, Patehra. 11. Respondent No. 5 has submitted with his reply, a copy of the application made by the petitioner for the post of Panchayat Karmi along with the declaration. On the first page of the alleged application of the petitioner (Annexure/R-5-I) some date seems to have been written at the bottom which was overwritten and then scored out. Thereafter, below it 23-8-2007' is found to have been written. Similarly, at page-2 of Annexure/R-5-I which is an alleged declaration, in the column of date some date seems to have been earlier written which after having been overwritten has been scored out and thereafter fresh date "23-8-2007" is found to have been mentioned. Again, on the third page of Annexure/R-5-I, initially mentioned date is found to have been scored out after overwriting on left side and fresh date "23-8-2007" is found to have been mentioned. Below the signature of the recipient, 23-8-2007' is found to have been mentioned after overwriting. In view of the aforesaid state of affairs, this Court orally directed the counsel for Gram Panchayat (counsel for respondent No. 4) to keep present the Panchayat Secretary with original record of the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, Phool Singh, Panchayat Secretary remained present on various dates during hearing with the record. In view of the aforesaid state of affairs, this Court orally directed the counsel for Gram Panchayat (counsel for respondent No. 4) to keep present the Panchayat Secretary with original record of the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, Phool Singh, Panchayat Secretary remained present on various dates during hearing with the record. In the original application of the petitioner again there is a overwriting on the date and thereafter its scoring out is found in the original application as well as the declaration. The acknowledgment/receipt which is and must have been issued to the applicant must be and is found to have been with the applicant/petitioner himself. There is/was no occasion to have the photocopy of acknowledgment in the original record of the Gram Panchayat S.D.O., Hanumana was present in the Court on 9-5-2008 with original record of appeal pending before him. The photocopy of the receipt dated 30-7-2007 is contained in the record of the Appeal No. 1/A-89/07-08. It seems that another receipt with overwriting and scoring out of initially written date and "23-8-2007" as subsequently written date has been inserted in the record of appeal without the knowledge of the petitioner and its copy has been issued to respondent No. 5 in contravention of legal provisions which has been submitted by respondent No. 5 as part of Annexure/R-5-I. It is clear from the following proceedings of this Court :- "1-5-2008 : Shri Phool Singh, Panchayat Secretary in person. He brought with him the original record of Gram Panchayat including inward register. He admits that entries in the inward register are made by him and the inward register is maintained by him. On perusal, it is found that there is no entry of any inward material after 24th of August, 2007. He admits that there is no signature of receiving person for having received any of the letters mentioned in the register, however, he admits that Gram Panchayat might have received other papers which are not entered in the inward register. He further admits that it is not recorded in the inward register that who did receive the letters mentioned in the inward register. He admits that on the application of the petitioner, some date was earlier mentioned which has been scored out and another date is mentioned. He further admits that it is not recorded in the inward register that who did receive the letters mentioned in the inward register. He admits that on the application of the petitioner, some date was earlier mentioned which has been scored out and another date is mentioned. On perusal, it is found that acknowledgment receipt which was delivered to the petitioner on submission of application its photocopy is already tagged in the record of Gram Panchayat. Panchayat Secretary on being asked stated that he received it from Tahsil. He admits that there is no entry about the receiving of photocopy of acknowledgment receipt containing interpolating dates. He states that he submitted an application for obtaining copy of acknowledgment receipt. Application was submitted at the instance of Sarpanch. A sum of Rs. 22-251- must have been incurred towards expenses. Entry of this money has been made in the cash book of Gram Panchayat. He says that he did not obtain receipt for spending this money. The Sarpanch had directed him in writing to submit application. Acknowledgment receipt tagged in the official record of Gram Panchayat was issued from Tahsil. He admits that the photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt does not contain seal or signature for having been issued from Tahsil. Panchayat Secretary prays for short time to bring the letter directing him to obtain copy and cash book containing the alleged entry. 6-5-2008: Shri Phool Singh, Panchayat Secretary present in person. Panchayat Secretary has brought the cash book register and certified copy of acknowledgment allegedly dated 23-8-2007. He stated before this Court that certified copy is issued by S.D.O. Hanumana. Learned Govt. Advocate is directed to keep Tahslidar, S.D.O. and Sarpanch, Hanumana present on 8-5-2008 with the relevant record. 9-5-2008: Shri Jagdish Prasad Dhurve, S.D.O. Hanumana, Shri D. R. Soni, Naib Tahsildar, Hanumana and Shri Phool Singh, Panchayat Secretary are present in person. Naib Tahsildar admitted that the alleged acknowledgment dated 23-8-2007 is photocopy of the certified copy issued by him on 2-5-2008 against the application at serial No. 1602. It was issued by him under his signature without inspection of the original document. His signature has been identified by him at A to A place. This document was produced before the Naib Tahsildar by one clerk namely Ashok Singh whose signature has been identified by Naib Tahsildar at B to B place. It was issued by him under his signature without inspection of the original document. His signature has been identified by him at A to A place. This document was produced before the Naib Tahsildar by one clerk namely Ashok Singh whose signature has been identified by Naib Tahsildar at B to B place. Signatures of Sarpanch and Secretary were put after he issued the certified copy. S.D.O. Hanumana is also present in person with original records of 1-A 89/2007-08, 7-A 89/2007-08 and 8-A 89/2007-8. Shri Soni, Naib Tahsildar admitted that the original of certified copy of alleged acknowledgment dated 23-8-2007 is not available in Case No. A-69/2007-08. S.D.O. Hanumana admitted that in the proceedings before the Gram Panchayat, Patehra, the column of date in the proceedings/Agenda dated 13-8-2007 is kept blank and no specific date is mentioned in the Register of proceedings. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is not present today. It is informed that he is not well. He is directed to remain present on 12-5-2008. Similarly, C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat Hanumana is also directed to remain present with the copies of correspondence dispatched to Gram Panchayat Patehra during the period from April, 2007 to August, 2007 along with the outward register and other relevant record. Naib Tahsildar and Panchayat Secretary shall remain present on the next date of hearing. 14-5-2008 : Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Hanumana Shri R. K. Kori is present with the outward register. He has furnished the details with the photocopies of the letters dispatched to the Gram Panchayat Patehra during April, 2007 to August, 2007. Shri D. R. Soni, Naib Tahsildar, Hanumana is also present. Presence of the aforesaid officers is hereby dispensed with for future. Presence of Sarpanch is also dispensed with for future, as her presence is no more required. Shri Phool Singh, Panchayat Secretary has left the Court without seeking leave. A bailable warrant for a sum of Rs. 1000/- be issued against him in order to ensure his presence tomorrow. 16-5-2008 : Learned Government Advocate submitted photocopies of dispatch register of Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Hanumana, containing entries from 2-6-2007 to 25-8-2007. Photocopies are kept on record. They contain entries about various letters described by the Janpad Panchayat Gram Panchayat Patehra. 1000/- be issued against him in order to ensure his presence tomorrow. 16-5-2008 : Learned Government Advocate submitted photocopies of dispatch register of Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Hanumana, containing entries from 2-6-2007 to 25-8-2007. Photocopies are kept on record. They contain entries about various letters described by the Janpad Panchayat Gram Panchayat Patehra. Panchayat Secretary is present in person who admitted that except three documents mentioned in dispatch register, there is no entry in the inward register about the remaining letters, which were sent to the Gram Panchayat Patehra." 12. Gram Panchayat Patehra has not submitted its return/reply. Averments that the application for the post of Panchayat Karmi was submitted by the petitioner on 30-7-2007 vide the receipt contained in Annexure/P-3 have not been refuted by the Gram Panchayat and no affidavit is submitted in the case by the Sarpanch or the Panchayat Secretary that the application for the post of Panchayat Karmi was not submitted by the petitioner on 30-7-2007 but was submitted on 23-8-2007. It is not a case of the Gram Panchayat that the application for the post of Panchayat Karmi was submitted by the petitioner on 23-8-2007 with an incorrect date mentioned in the application and the petitioner on being required corrected it. Admittedly, there is overwriting on the date initially written on the application and declaration before their scoring out. There are no initials of the petitioner on the overwriting or scoring out. Fresh date "23-8-2007" is found to have been mentioned in the record of Gram Panchayat after overwriting and scoring out of the initial date without initials or its attestation. 13. Shri K. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner made available for inspection of the Court the original receipt. Photocopy of the same is marked as Annexure/P-3. It contains 30-7-2007 as date on which the application of the petitioner was received. It does not contain any change, overwriting or scoring out. It further does not contain any other date i.e. 23-8-2007 as the date of receipt as alleged by respondent No. 5. There is no explanation by the Gram Panchayat about this receipt which has thus not been disputed at all by the Gram Panchayat, Sarpanch or its Secretary. It does not contain any change, overwriting or scoring out. It further does not contain any other date i.e. 23-8-2007 as the date of receipt as alleged by respondent No. 5. There is no explanation by the Gram Panchayat about this receipt which has thus not been disputed at all by the Gram Panchayat, Sarpanch or its Secretary. In the drift of events stated hereinabove and the state of affairs revealed hereinabove, it may be safely concluded that the application for the post of Panchayat Karmi was submitted by the petitioner in due manner on 30-7-2007 and the last date of application being 12-8-2007, application of the petitioner ought to have been considered. Non-consideration of his application amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the action of the Gram Panchayat is not found to be sustainable in law. 14. Under the Panchayat Karmi Yojna and further in view of Annexure/P-1 and P-2, a selection for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi is to be made on merits on the basis of marks secured in High School Certificate Examination. Petitioner secured about 61.7% marks whereas respondent No. 5 is stated to have received 40.4% marks in the qualifying examination. Petitioner also fulfilled other pre-requisites. This being so, respondent No. 5 could not have been appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi without consideration of petitioner's application. 15. Phool Singh who happened to be the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Patehra (Mauganj) was responsible for maintaining the record of Gram Panchayat. In the application of the petitioner overwriting and scoring out is found without initials or due signature of having made any change in it. He is stated to have issued receipt Annexure/P-3 on 30-7-2007. Respondent No. 5 along with his reply has submitted that Annexure/R-5-I is a photocopy of the receipt which is stated to have been received by him from Tahsildar. Naib Tahsildar, Shri D. R. Soni on 9-5-2008 admitted before this Court that certified copy of the alleged receipt dated 23-8-2007 was issued by him under the signature without inspection of the original document. Such original document must be always with the person (i.e. petitioner in the present case) who must have submitted the application and must have further obtained its receipt. It can never be in the record of Tahsildar. Such original document must be always with the person (i.e. petitioner in the present case) who must have submitted the application and must have further obtained its receipt. It can never be in the record of Tahsildar. Despite this, a certified copy has been issued contrary to the provisions contained in law. There is no provision in law to issue certified copy of an unauthentic photocopy. The said Naib Tahsildar stated before this Court on 9-5-2008 that the document was produced before him by one clerk namely Ashok Singh. Although, the Panchayat Secretary stated that he was directed by Sarpanch to obtain certified copy, no such direction in writing is found in the record. Since, Sarpanch and/or Panchayat Secretary have not even submitted the reply of Gram Panchayat in the present case, there seems to be no occasion to obtain certified copy of the photocopy unless the Panchayat Secretary knew that a photocopy with changed date after overwriting has been inserted in the record and its photocopy may be made use of by the respondent No. 5. After obtaining certified copy of a photocopy containing overwriting and changed date, he further made it available to respondent No. 5 to make use of it in the present writ petition. Thus, prima facie there appears to be a foul game largely by the Panchayat Secretary and also by the Naib Tahsildar and the concerning Clerk in issuance of or obtaining the certified copy of the photocopy of the alleged receipt dated 23-8-2007. An enquiry is to be made against them after providing due opportunity of hearing. Needless to say that the necessary action according to the outcome of the enquiry is to be taken in an expeditious manner within three months. 16. It is not out of place to mention that the Panchayat Secretary was required by this Court to bring the inward and outward register. The registers were accordingly made available. It has been clearly found that all the correspondence addressed to the Gram Panchayat Patehra (Mauganj) had not been completely entered in the inward register. This being a serious lapse on the part of Panchayat Secretary, an action deserves to be taken against him in the matter. The registers were accordingly made available. It has been clearly found that all the correspondence addressed to the Gram Panchayat Patehra (Mauganj) had not been completely entered in the inward register. This being a serious lapse on the part of Panchayat Secretary, an action deserves to be taken against him in the matter. Collector, Rewa is directed to initiate enquiry in the matter in accordance with law and take necessary action in the light of the observations made hereinabove against Panchayat Secretary Phool Singh, Naib Tahsildar D. R. Soni and Clerk Ashok Singh. 17. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The resolution dated 21-8-2007 of Gram Panchayat Patehra (Mauganj) marked as Annexure/P-7 is hereby quashed on account of non-consideration of petitioner's application despite more merits. Gram Panchayat, Patehra (Mauganj) is hereby directed to make appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi after considering all the applications afresh including that of petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the Collector, Rewa for necessary action. Writ petition allowed.