Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1145 (MP)

Pulandar Singh v. State of M. P.

2010-11-18

ABHAY M.NAIK, S.N.AGGARWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT : The appointment to the writ appellant as Panchayat Karmi has been denied on two grounds. (i) that the writ appellant was related as family member of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and; (ii) respondent 6 was ignored for his appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi despite he being more meritorious than the writ appellant. Shri Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ appellant, has argued that respondent no. 6 had never made an application for his appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi and according to him there was a delay on the part of respondent No. 6 in filing revision against the order of Collector. It is submitted by him that it was incumbent upon the Revisional Court to have first decided the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before considering the revision petition. Upon giving our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the writ appellant, we are not able to persuade ourselves to agree with him. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ appellant does not dispute that respondent No.6 was more meritorious than the writ appellant. We do not find any merit in his argument that respondent No.6 has not made any application for his appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi. Since this aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Collector, Bhind, in his order dated 28.01.10 in case No. 20/2007-08 @ Hindi @ (15) wherein it has categorically been held that respondent No.6 had made an application for his appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi but Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat did not inform about his application deliberately and obtained.the order of appointment against respondent No.6. There is ample evidence on record to show that respondent No.6 was wrongly denied for his appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi in preference to the writ appellant who in turn as per impugned order was related to Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the writ appellant and thus, the appeal fails and accordingly is hereby dismissed in limine but with no order as to costs.