Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 480 (MP)

Neeta Tiwari v. Satya Mishra

2011-04-20

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
ORDER 1. This intra-Court appeal under section 2 (I) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.2.2011 in W.P.No. 9432/2009 dismissing the appellant's petition. 2. It appears that the appellant was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakarta pursuant to the resolution of the Gram Sabha, Mahudar dated 28.1.2003. The appellant thereafter joined on the aforesaid post on 19.2.2004. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondents No.1 and 2 challenged the appointment of the appellant on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta by filing an appeal against the order of the Gram Sabha before the Collector, Satna, who found that the resolution for appointment of the appellant was not passed by the Gram Sabha and, therefore, quashed the same vide order dated 18.2.2005. The revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Collector, Satna was also dismissed and the order dated 18.2.2005 passed by the Collector was upheld by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa vide order dated 4.9.2009. 3. It is the aforesaid two orders were challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and peruse d the record. 5. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since 12 office bearers of the Gram Panchayat were present in the meeting, the appointment of the appellant was valid and has wrongly been quashed. 6. We do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel il':' for the appellant for the reason that Section 6 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayatraj Evan1 Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 provided for the quorum of the meeting of the Gram Sabha. It reads as follows :"6. Meeting of Gram Sabha. (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) 1 he quorum of every meeting of Gram Sabha shall not be less than one-tenth of the total number of members of the Gram Sabha or five hundred members of the Gran1 Sabha, whichever is less." 7. In the instant appeal as is apparent from the record, in the meeting only office bearers of the Gram Panchayat were present and they signed the resolution. In the instant appeal as is apparent from the record, in the meeting only office bearers of the Gram Panchayat were present and they signed the resolution. There is no material on record to show that the Gram Sabha's meeting was notified and on the notified date it was convened and that the resolution appointing the appellant was passed by the Gram Sabha. On the contrary, it appears from a perusal of the document Annexure A-I, which is said to be the resolution of the Gram Sabha, that it mentions about the presence of only 13 members who are all office bearers of the Gram Panchayat. The Collector and the Commissioner on examining the records have also recorded a finding that the decision was not taken in accordance with law, as it was not taken in a meeting of the Gram Sabha. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any fault with the conclusion recorded in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal, therefore, being without merit is accordingly dismissed.