Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 423 (MP)

Mohammad Ahsan v. State of M. P.

2011-04-05

SANJAY YADAV

body2011
JUDGMENT : Heard on admission. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 09-02-2011 as well as the order dated 14-03-2011. By order dated 09-02-2011 the petitioner's status as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Shivpur, Janpad Panchayat Jawa, district- Rewa, conferred upon him under section 69(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, has been withdrawn. Whereas by order dated 14-03-2011 the appellate authority before him the appeal is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 09-02-2011, has declined to stay the operation of the said order. Controversy, as to whether the petitioner is a Panchayat Secretary, was a subject matter of Writ Petition No. 8637/09. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 28-08-2009 in the following terms : "It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the representations filed by the petitioner before Collector, Rewa dated 11.8.2009 and 18.8.2009 have also not yielded any result. It is, therefore, prayed that a direction be issued to respondent no. 2- Collector, Rewa to consider the representations filed by the petitioner and deal with the same in accordance with law. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the petitioner's representations against the proposed steps for taking up fresh proceedings for making appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi and specifically taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner, accordance with the statement made by him, has already been appointed and is working on the said post. To enable the Collector, Rewa to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. It needs no specific and special mention to state that the Collector, Rewa shall consider the representations, filed by the petitioner, expeditiously and deal with the same in accordance with law." Consequence whereof an order was passed on 02-11-2010; whereby, the petitioner was notified as Panchayat Karmi under section 69(1) of the Act of 1993. Thereafter, District Panchayat, Rewa while acting upon the order dated 09-05-2008 passed in an another Writ Petition No. 15218/07, passed the impugned order on 09-02-2011. Thereafter, District Panchayat, Rewa while acting upon the order dated 09-05-2008 passed in an another Writ Petition No. 15218/07, passed the impugned order on 09-02-2011. In Writ Petition No. 15218/07, which was at the instance of one Vishnu Dev Pandey wherein the petitioner was arrayed as respondent No. 5, it was ordered :- " In the result, Annexure P/1 dated 27.9.07 is not sustainable in law and the same is hereby quashed and simultaneously resolution dated 16.9.07 vide Annexure P/3 is also found to be unsustainable in law being contrary to the criteria of appointment prescribed under the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, and is also hereby quashed. Respondent no. 4 is hereby directed to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi in accordance with Panchayat Karmi Yojna and other orders/circulars of the State Government in relation to the matter of appointment. Respondents no. 1 to 3 are directed to ensure that the appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi in Gran Panchayat Shivpur may be made in accordance with law after considering all the eligible and qualified candidates including the petitioner." Pertinent it is to note that though the petitioner was respondent No. 5 in writ petition No. 15218/07, however, it appears from the order dated 28-08-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 8637/09, which was a petition filed by the petitioner, neither Vishnu Dev Pandey is arrayed as respondent nor there is a reference to an order dated 09-05-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 15218/07. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim equity on the basis of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 8637/09. Since the order dated 09-02-2011 is under challenge in an appeal, which has been admitted for hearing by the appellate authority. Wherein by order dated 14-03-2011 the prayer for interim relief has been rejected. No case is made out to interfere with the orders dated 09-02-2011 and 14-03-2011. In view whereof the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.