Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 44 (MP)

RIKIRAJ JAISWAL v. STATE OF M P

2009-01-09

DIPAK MISRA, R.K.GUPTA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 2 of M. P. (Uchcha Nayalaya Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal)Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging the order dated 03. 12. 08 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 6148/08. ( 2. ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge the present appellant challenged the order dated 22. 04. 08 passed by the Collector whereby he has upheld the order passed by the S. D. O. dated 11. 3. 08. Before the S. D. O. , an appeal was preferred whereby the resolution passed by the Panchayat dated 22. 8. 07 was suspended and the S. D. O. directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad panchayat Balaghat to take steps for appointment of Panchayat karmi. ( 3. ) THE present appellant preferred an appeal against the same and the Collector by its order dated 22. 04. 08 dismissed the same. ( 4. ) THE learned Single Judge held that petitioner was appointed by raising hands and by majority. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the resolution dated 22. 08. 07 was rightly suspended by the S. D. O. by its order dated 11. 3. 08 on the ground that appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi was to be made on the basis of merit and not on the basis of majority. ( 5. ) IT was the case of the present appellant that so far as respondent no. 7 is concerned though he was placed at serial No. 1 but he has submitted an application to withdraw his candidature and then the present appellant was appointed. The S. D. O. after perusal of the record came to the conclusion that on behalf of the respondent no. 7, no application as such was ever moved by him to withdrew his candidature and as a consequence of the same, s. D. O. came to the conclusion that the candidature of respondent no. 7 even though being more meritorious was wrongly rejected by the Panchayat and the present appellant was appointed by ignoring the merit position. ( 6. ) ADMITTEDLY the present appellant was placed at serial no. 2 and the respondent no. 7, in the merit list was placed at serial no. 1. ( 7. 7 even though being more meritorious was wrongly rejected by the Panchayat and the present appellant was appointed by ignoring the merit position. ( 6. ) ADMITTEDLY the present appellant was placed at serial no. 2 and the respondent no. 7, in the merit list was placed at serial no. 1. ( 7. ) ON the basis of the same, we do not find that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are incorrect in any way and requires any interference. The learned Single Judge has upheld the findings recorded by the S. D. O. and also the order passed by the collector whereby he has upheld the order passed by the S. D. O. by order dated 11. 3. 08. ( 8. ) THE Collector had passed the order wherein he has upheld the order passed by the S. D. O. and also directed to lodge an F. I. R. against the present appellant on the ground that he has submitted a false application which was said to have been filed by the respondent no. 7 for withdrawal of his candidature. ( 9. ) IN the present case, we find that that the aforesaid observations against the present appellant is unwarranted because the said application for withdrawal was not filed by the present appellant either before the S. D. O. or before the Collector but the same was filed by the Panchayat. Since the said application was filed along with the record by the Panchayat, therefore, we do not approve the said observations and the directions passed by the s. D. O. and also the Collector wherein a direction was given against the present appellant to register the F. I. R. for the alleged offence. ( 10. ) IN view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed only to the extent to set aside the observations made by the Collector for registration of F. I. R. against the present appellant.