Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 272 (MP)

SURENDRA PRASAD TIWARI v. KAVITA PANDEY

2009-02-26

DIPAK MISRA, R.K.GUPTA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s 2 (1) of M. P. Uchha nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The appellant challenges the order dated 05/01/2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 6224/2008 (s), whereby the petition filed by the respondent no. 1 has been disposed of by setting the order passed by the State Minister. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3, Collector, Rewa to consider the entire issue relating to the appointment to the post of Panchayat karmi in the Village Panchayat Pidariya and to ensure that the appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi is made strictly as per the circulars issued by the STAte government from time to time and by following the criteria of merit and preference provided in the circular. ( 2. ) THE facts leading to the present case are that the present appellant alleges that he was already selected and the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution in his favour to appoint him as Panchayat Karmi. An advertisement was issued on 04/02/2008 by the Chief Executive Officer, whereby the applications were invited for appointment to the post of Panchayat karmi. The appellant as well as other candidates applied for the same but the Panchayat passed a resolution on 30th July 2007 in his favour to appoint him. The proceedings of gram panchayat were doubted. The proceedings have been placed on record as annexure-P-4 alongwith writ appeal. It is clear from the proceedings that without recording any reasons the appointment of the appellant was made. The resolution was passed to appoint the appellant on the post of Panchayat karmi on the basis of majority of votes only. The said proceedings were doubted by the Sub Divisional Officer and the relevant information was sent to the Collector vide his letter dated 27/12/2007. The said letter has been placed on record of the writ appeal as Annexure-P-7. As it is evident from the same it was found that certain other candidates also applied for the same but the resolution was doubted on the ground that the Panchayat should have called for other information before rejecting the applications of the other candidates but the same was not done and without there being any justification the candidature of other persons was rejected and were not considered for the appointment by the Panchayat. On the basis of the same the Collector, Rewa vide his letter Annexure-P-8 directed the Panchayat to initiate the fresh proceedings for the appointment. Against the aforesaid order the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner and the order passed by the commissioner is filed on record as Annexure-P-13 to the writ appeal. As it is evident from the order passed by the Commissioner the matter was remitted back to the Collector to decide the issue after giving an opportunity as such and till then the fresh process which was initiated for selection and appointment was also stayed. Against the said order the present appellant preferred a revision to the Minister and the Minister by an order dated 29/03/2008 (Annexure-P-1) allowed the said revision and set-aside the order passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner. ( 3. ) BEFORE this Court a writ petition was filed by the respondent no. 1. challenging the order passed by the State Minister which is Annexure-P-1. The order passed by the Commissioner dated 22/02/2008 was upheld, wherein the matter was remitted back to the Collector by the Commissioner. The learned single Judge directed for initiating the fresh process of selection to the post of panchayat karmi strictly as per the circular issued time to time and also to follow criteria of merit and preference provided in the circular. ( 4. ) THE question in the present case is that the State Minister without even assuming notice to the other side has set aside the order passed by the commissioner. The Collector perused the records of meeting of the Gram panchayat which is filed as Annexure-P-4 wherein a decision was taken to appoint the present appellant. There is no reference in the resolution as to why the applications submitted by other candidates were improper and no reasons have been stated as to why the applications submitted by other candidates are rejected. ( 5. ) THE Sub Divisional Officer in his letter, written to the Collector on 27/12/2007 (Annexure-P-7) has intimated to the Collector that there had been certain other candidates but their applications were rejected in an improper manner. In the said letter it is also stated that the applications which were received their antecedents could have been inquired into for the purposes of transparency and also to give an opportunity to other eligible candidates to compete in the selection. ( 6. In the said letter it is also stated that the applications which were received their antecedents could have been inquired into for the purposes of transparency and also to give an opportunity to other eligible candidates to compete in the selection. ( 6. ) ON the basis of the same it is clear that the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution only on the basis of majority of votes and the resolution of the Gram panchayat does not show anything as to why the candidature of other persons who applied towards the advertisement was not considered and as to how their applications were not in accordance with the circular issued by the State Govt. regulating the appointment to the post of Panchayat karmi. ( 7. ) UNDER the circumstances it is clear that the Collector in his order dated 29/11/2008 (Annexure-P-8) was justified in directing the Panchayat to initiate the fresh process for appointment to the post of Panchayat karmi. The commissioner vide his order dated 22nd Feb 2008 was not justified in directing the Collector to decide the matter afresh and so also the State Minister was not justified in quashing the order passed by the Commissioner. ( 8. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the Collector has done the justice between the parties by directing the Panchayat to initiate the fresh proceedings for the appointment to the post of Panchayat karmi. We do not find any fault in the order passed by the Collector. It is, therefore, directed that the respondents no. 6 shall initiate the fresh proceedings for the appointment to the post of Panchayat karmi in accordance with law and also consider the candidature of the candidates who apply in terms to the circular in-vouge time to time regulating the appointment on the post of Panchayat karmi. ( 9. ) IN view of the our aforesaid direction we set-aside the order passed by the commissioner 22nd Feb 2008 (Annexure-P-13) and passed by the Minister i. e 29/03/2008 (Annexure-P-1) Writ Appeal stands disposed of.