JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi whereby the proposal of Gram Panchayat recommending appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Mitra has been cancelled the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. 2. It is not disputed that Amit Kumar Patel having highest marks was placed at Serial No. 1 in the merit list and the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2. However, since Karan Patel, a member of administrative Committee of the Gram Panchayat was cousin (Chachera Bhai) of Shri A.K. Patel, he was not recommended and in his place, the petitioner who was second in the merit list was proposed for appointment. The District Magistrate found that in the Government Order dated 3.7.2006 the members of family who were excluded did not cover “cousin” (Chachera Bhai) therefore, exclusion of A.K. Patel for appointment to the post of Panchayat Mitra, despite of his highest marks was illegal. He therefore, cancelled the said resolution of Gram Panchayat and directed them to recommend the name of A.K. Patel for appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the direction for appointment of A.K. Patel is concerned, the same cannot be acted upon since Shri A.K. Patel during the pendency of this matter died on 26.11.2008. The petitioner has filed death certificate of Sri Patel and submits that he being the next in merit now should be directed to be appointed. 4. However, I find myself unable to accept the submission. The petitioner has been successful in avoiding the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Panchayat Mitra though admittedly, he was higher in merit than the petitioner. After death of respondent No. 3 during the pendency of the matter the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the situation. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view the selection, if any, would have to be held afresh in accordance with law but before that I consider it necessary to find out whether the District Magistrate, has passed the impugned order correctly or not regarding the resolution of the Gram Panchayat making recommendation in favour of the petitioner. 6. 6. The Government order while excluding the appointment of the relatives of Pradhan & Secretary of concerned Gram Panchayat says as under : **lEcfU/k;ks dk iapk;r fe= ds :i esa dksbZ Hkh O;fDr lEcfU/kr uke iapk;r iz/kku vFkok lfpo xzke iapk;r dk laca/kh gS] iapk;r fe= ds :i es ugh j[kk tk ldsxk lEcfU/k;ks dk rkRi;Z firk nknk olqj fir` vFkok ekr` lEca/kh iq= ikS= iq= o/kw HkkbZ cgu ifr iRuh eka ls gSA** 7. The list of the relatives who are excluded is exhaustive and not inclusive or illustrative. Those relatives who are not mentioned cannot be deemed to be included therein as it would amount to extending the list of the relatives provided in the said Government Order. It is not permissible since it travels within the realm of legislation. It is well settled that the Court shall not legislate in the garb of interpretation of the statute or statutory provision unless there is any ambiguity. Casus omissus is not to be supplied by the Court. I, therefore, do not find any error in the order passed by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi revoking the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Palhana, Block Mooratganj, District Kaushambi for appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Mitra in place of A.K. Patel. 8. However, in view of the fact that respondent No. 5 is no more alive, the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to make a fresh selection for Panchayat Mitra in accordance with law. In case the petitioner apply, and if otherwise found eligible, may also be considered according to his merit and other relevant provisions applicable in this regard. 9. With the above observations/directions the writ petition is dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. ————