Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 31 (MP)

Satish Rawat v. State of M. P.

2011-01-07

INDRANI DATTA, S.N.AGGARWAL

body2011
ORDER 1. The writ appellant Satish Rawat, in this writ appeal filed under section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 2667/09 (S) dismissing the writ petition directing the Gram Panchayat to initiate process for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi in terms of the order of the Commissioner by issuing an advertisement. 2. We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the record of this writ appeal. 3. The Gram Panchayat, Sateriya, District Shivpuri (MP) had advertised one post of Panchayat Karmi to invite applications from eligible candidates. Since the Gram Panchayat failed to complete the selection process for appointment to the vacant post of Panchayat Karmi within the stipulated time period in terms of section 86 of M.P. Panchayart Karmi Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (one of 1994), the Janpad Panchayat on directions of the State Govt. initiated the process of filling up one vacant post of Panchayat Karmi in the Gram Panchayat, Sateriya and prepared a panel of four candidates on 11.10.2007. The name of the writ appellant was at serial No.4 in that panel prepared by the Janpad Panchayat. 4. The writ appellant had challenged the select panel prepared by the Janpad Panchayat on 11.10.2007 by preferring an appeal before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division. Challenge by the writ appellant before the Commissioner was on the ground that his name ought to have been at serial No. 1 in the select panel instead of his name mentioned at serial No.4. The Commissioner being appellate authority without going into the contentions of the writ appellant on this aspect chose to set aside the entire panel of all the four selected candidates prepared by the Janpad Panchayat directing the Gram Panchayat to initiate process of appointment for filling up one vacant post of Panchayat Karmi in the Gram Panchayat, Sateriya. The select panel prepared by the Janpad Panchayat was quashed by the Commissioner in exercise of its appellate authority as it was of the view that Janpad Panchayat had no power to initiate selection process itself in case the Gram Panchayat fails to fill up the vacant post within the stipulated time period. The select panel prepared by the Janpad Panchayat was quashed by the Commissioner in exercise of its appellate authority as it was of the view that Janpad Panchayat had no power to initiate selection process itself in case the Gram Panchayat fails to fill up the vacant post within the stipulated time period. The Commissioner took a view that it was for the Gram Panchayat to have initiated process to fill up the vacant post of Panchayat Karmi while quashing the selection panel prepared by the Janpad Panchayat directions were given to the Gram Panchayat for initiating process for filling up one vacant post of Panchayat Karmi. 5. The appellant aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner preferred a writ petition being WP No. 2667/09 (S) seeking quashing of the impugned order of the Commissioner. The said writ petition filed by the writ appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 22.11.2010, aggrieved wherefrom, he has approached this Court in the present writ appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that after passing of the order by the Commissioner which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order, a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Ranna v. State of M.P. & Ors. reported as 2009 (3) JLJ 276 = 2009 (4) MPHT, 377, has held that in case; the Gram Panchayat fails to fill up the vacant post of Pane hay at Karmi with the stipulated time period then the Janpad Panchayat can proceed with the selection process for filling up the vacant post of Panchayat Karmi in the Gram Panchayat. 7. Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gram Panchayat/respondent No.4 submits on instructions that subsequent to Full Bench judgment of this Court, even the Gram Panchayat, Sateriya, has passed a resolution on 19-8-2010 (R/1 at page 34 of the paper book) to go by the selection panel prepared by the Janpad Panchayat instead of initiating fresh process for recruitment of vacant post of Panchayat Karmi itself. In view of this resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, Mr. In view of this resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, Mr. Raghavendra Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ appellant does not press this appeal and says that he has no objection in case appointments to the vacant post of Panchayat Karmi in the Gram Panchayat, Sateriya, are made as per select panel prepared by the Janpad Panchayat. 8. In view of the foregoing and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2010 passed in writ petition No. 2667/09 (S) is hereby set aside and directions are given to respondent No.4 i.e. Gram of Panchayat Karmi from amongst the candidates in order of their merit in the select panel prepared by the Janpad Panchayat on 11.10.2010. 9. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 10. Certified copy as per rules.