Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 841 (MP)

Ranjeet Singh Yadav v. State of M. P.

2011-07-28

K.K.LAHOTI, SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER Lahoti, J. – 1. This appeal is directed under section 2(1) of M.P. Ucchh Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing order dated 7.8.2009 by the Single Bench in Writ Petition No. 7831/2009 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order Annexure A-14 dated 25.7.2009 by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in appeal No.236/B-121/08-09 was dismissed. 2. This order has been assailed by the appellant on the ground (a) that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, was illegal. The appellant was duly appointed as Panchayat Karmi and powers under section 69 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evem Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 were also conferred upon the appellant. (b) That due process for the selection of Panchayat Karmi was followed by the Gram Panchayat after receiving the applications and candidatures of all the applicants were duly considered by the Gram Panchayat. (c) That the circular dated 27.1.2006, guidelines and procedures were duly followed by the Gram Panchayat and thereafter appellant was appointed. (d) That the Additional Commissioner has wrongly held that the candidature of Ku. Ganga Pradhan was not considered while she had not annexed any documents to show that she was a local resident of Gram Panchayat, Bilpura. (e) In respect of non-consideration of candidature of Vikas Vishwakarma, he had also not filed any document in respect of his local residence. Under the scheme, no provision was made to provide opportunity of hearing before rejection of candidature. The Additional Commissioner erred in considering all these and setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Panchayat Karmi. (f) That learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the candidature of Rakesh Sharma, Kartik Patel, Ku.Ganga Pradhan and respondent Vikas Vishwakarma were rightly rejected on merits and a detailed enquiry was also conducted in this regard by the Sub-Divisional Officer, in which a finding was recorded that the rejection was in accordance with law, but all these aspects were not appreciated by the learned Single Judge. (g) That the procedure was duly followed for the appointment of the appellant but the merit of the case were not considered by the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Single Judge and the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur vide Annexure A-14. 4. (g) That the procedure was duly followed for the appointment of the appellant but the merit of the case were not considered by the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Single Judge and the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur vide Annexure A-14. 4. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, record perused. (a) The facts of the case are that the appellant participated in the selection process for the appointment of Panchayat Karmi pursuant to direction issued by the State Government under section 86(1) of M.P.Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The Gram Panchayat, Bilpura appointed the appellant as Panchayat Karmi. The appellant's appointment was assailed by the respondent No.6 Vikas Vishwakarma by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the scheme was not followed and the appellant was appointed inspite of the fact that respondent No.6 was more meritorious in comparison to the appellant. (b) The appellant who was respondent in the appeal contested the appeal. He had submitted that he was appointed in accordance with law. He was meritorious and stood as Sr.No.1 in the candidates who had applied for the post. The candidatures of others were rightly not considered either on account of producing falls certificates or they were disqualified being not a local resident. (c) The learned Single Judge found that the Commissioner after going through the entire record has recorded a finding against the appellant, had allowed the appeal filed by the respondents No.6 and 7. The aforesaid findings are findings of facts based on proper scrutiny of records. do not warrant any interference of the Court. The learned Single Judge found that under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India in writ jurisdiction the Court is not required to go into the disputed question of facts. The Commissioner has set aside the selection process and directed re-initiation of the same in accordance with law in which the appellant would also get full liberty and opportunity to participate in the same. On the aforesaid ground the writ petition was dismissed. 5. To appreciate the rival contentions of the appellant and respondent the findings recorded by the Commissioner in the order dated 25.7.2009 deserves to be referred. On the aforesaid ground the writ petition was dismissed. 5. To appreciate the rival contentions of the appellant and respondent the findings recorded by the Commissioner in the order dated 25.7.2009 deserves to be referred. which reads as under: ^^esjs }kjk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA dyDVj iapk;r us vius i= fnukad 18-10-2007 }kjk eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r] iukxj dks funsZf’kr fd;k Fkk fd os lacaf/kr xzke iapk;r esa tkdj of.kZr ‘krksZa rFkk vgZrkvksa dk ikyu djrs gq, iapk;r dehZ dh fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh djsaxsa] ysfdu eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r] iukuxj }kjk bldk iku ugha fd;k x;k ,oa u gh ljiap xzke iapk;r] fcyiqjk dks fu;qfDr ckor dksbZ lwpuk nh xbZA cfYd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vius i= fnukad 13-11-2007 ds }kjk /kujkt flag] xzke lgk;d dks funsZf’kr fd;k fd os vkosnu izkIr dj] xzke iapk;r dh cSBd dk vk;kstu djrs gq,] esfjV ds vk/kkj ij p;u dh dk;Zokgh djkosaA mDr funsZ’kksa ds ikyu esa xzke lgk;d us iapk;r dehZ ds in gsrq vkosnu i= izkIr fd,] ysfdu izkIr vkosnuksa ds ijh{kk o ojh;rk lwph cukus ds laca/k esa xzke iapk;r dh dksbZ cSBd vk;ksftr ugha dh xbZA dqy 36 vkosnu izkIr gq,] ftUgsa xzke lgk;d }kjk fnukad 17-11-2007 dks eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r] iukxj dks izsf”kr dj fn;k x;kA bl izdkj iapk;r dehZ dh fu;qfDr gsrq uk rks fof/kor 7 fnol dh foKfIr tkjh dh xbZ] uk gh xzke iapk;r dh cSBd cqykbZ xbZ] uk gh ljiap lfgr xzke iapk;r ds lHkh lnL;ksa ls dksbZ lgefr izkIr dh xbZA ;gk¡ rd fd b’rgkj tkjh ds laca/k esa xzke lgk;d }kjk rS;kj fd, x, iapukek esa Hkh ljiap] miljiap lfgr lHkh iapksa ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu i= vkeaf=r djus gsrq fnukad 14-11-2007 ls 18-11-2007 rd vFkkZr ek= rhu fnol dk le; fn;k x;k] tcfd ‘kklu ds ifji= fnukad 27-1-2006 esa fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k dh dafMdk 2 esa lkr fnol dk le; fn, tkus dk izko/kku gSA eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r] iukxj dh bl U;k;ky; dks miyC/k djkbZ xbZ dk;kZy;hu uLrh ds voyksdu ls ik;k x;k fd muds }kjk vius Lrj ls iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 86¼2½ ds rgr iapk;r dehZ dh fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh izkjaHk djus ds iwoZ iapk;r dehZ dh fu;qfDr xzke iapk;r Lrj ls djus gsrq ljiap xzke iapk;r fcyiqjk dks dHkh fy[kk ugha x;kA tcfd iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 86¼1½ ds rgr igys xzke iapk;r }kjk iapk;r dehZ dh fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg,A ;fn 30 fnu ds Hkhrj xzke iapk;r }kjk iapk;r dehZ dh fu;qfDr ugha dh tkrh gS] rks iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 86¼2½ ds rgr dyDVj }kjk iapk;r dehZ dh fu;qfDr dh tk ldsxhA bl izdkj ‘kklukns’kksa o iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Kkr gksrk gS fd eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r iukxj us vius i= dzekad 2860] fnukad 28-11-2007 ds }kjk ftyk dk;kZy; dks dsoy rhu ukeksa] jkds’k ‘kekZ] dkfrZd iVsy o jathr ;kno ds ukeksa dk iSuy Hkstk gS tcfd iapk;r dehZ ds in gsrq izkIr 36 esa ls 23 vkosnd ik= Fks] mudh izkIrkadksa ds vk/kkj ij ojh;rk lwph cukdj ftyk dk;kZy; dks Hkstuk Fkk] tks ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;g tkurs gq, fd jkds’k ‘kekZ] iap Jherh lquhrk ‘kekZ okMZ ua- 11 dk nsoj gS rFkk dkfrZd iVsy bathfu;fjax dk Nk= gS vkSj iapk;r dehZ ds in gsrq ik= ugha gS] ds ckotwn Hkh buds uke lfgr dsoy rhu ukeksa dh izLrkouk fnukad 28-11-2007 ds i= ds }kjk dh xbZ] rkfd rhljs ‘ks”k vkosnd jathr ;kno dks lh/ks ykHk igqapk;k tk ldsA eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r iukuxj us jathr ;kno ds vkosnd fnukad 16-11-2007 ds lkFk layXu ‘kiFk i= esa jathr ;kno ds odhy gksus laca/kh rF; dks Hkh tkucw> dj fNik;k gSA blds vfrfjDr jathr ;kno ds odhy gksus laca/kh rF; dks Hkh tkucw> dj fNik;k gSA blds vfrfjDr jathr ;kno ds fo:) 294] 506@34 vkbZ ih lh ,oa 3¼1½10 ,l lh ,l Vh ,DV ds rgr] Jherh ‘kf’k fdj.k nqcs] fo’ks”k l= U;k;k/kh’k tcyiqj ds U;k;ky; esa vkijkf/kd izdj.k izpfyr gS vkSj jathr ;kno ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls izkIr tekur ij gSA ysfdu eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r iukxj us bl xaHkhj rF; dks fNikrs gq, jathr ;kno ds uke dh izLrkouk vius i= fnukad 28-11-2007 ds }kjk dh gS tks u dsoy fof/k foijhr gS cfYd ?kksj vkifRrtud Hkh gSA ftyk Lrj ls Hkh bl vksj /;ku ugha fn;k x;k gS tcfd bl laca/k esa ljiap xzke iapk;r fcyiqjk }kjk fnukad 5-4-2008] 16-2-2008] 16-2-2009 o 3-3-2009 dks mUgsa Hkh bl laca/k esa lh/ks f’kdk;rsa izLrqr dh xbZ gSA eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r iukxj }kjk vkns’k fnukad 25-2-2009 ds }kjk mRrjoknh dz- 3 jathr ;kno ds iapk;r dehZ ds in ij fu;qDr vkns’k tkjh fd, x,A mDr vkns’k eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r ds vkns’k dzekad lh&02 2009 720 fnukad 24-2-2009 ij vk/kkfjr gS ftlesa jathr ;kno ds iapk;r dehZ fu;qDr djus o xhrk iky dks izrh{kk lwph esa j[kk x;k gSA tcfd eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r iukxj ds izLrko fnukad 28-11-2007 esa dsoy rhu mEehnokjksa 1-jkds’k ‘kekZ & 89-2 izfr’kr] 2- dkfrZd iVsy 85-6 izfr’kr] 3- jathr flag ;kno 71-8 izfr’kr dks ik= crkrs gq, buds uke dh izLrkouk dh xbZ FkhA mDr lwph esa xhrk ikWy dk uke gh ugha Fkk ysfdu fQj Hkh xhrk ikWy dk p;u izrh{kk lwph gsrq fdl vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k] tks lansgkLin gSA ‘kklu ds ifji= fnukad 27-1-2006 ds vuqlkj iapk;r dehZ dh fu;qfDr 30 fnu esa djus ds funsZ’k gS ysfdu v/khuLFk dk;kZy; us iapk;r dehZ dh fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh fnukad 13-11-2007 dks izkjaHk dh tks fnukad 25-2-2009 dks fu;qfDr vkns’k tkjh dj iw.kZ dh xbZA bl izdkj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk Lor% gh ‘kklu ds funsZ’kksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,d vU; mEehnokj dq- xaxk iz/kku ftlds d{kk 11 oh esa 77-4 izfr’kr vad gS tks fd jathr ;kno ls vf/kd gS] mls lquokbZ dk ekSdk fn, cxSj mldks vk/kkjrky fuoklh crkdj mldk vkosnu fujLr dj fn;k x;k tcfd mlus gkbZ Ldwy ,oa gk;j lsds.Mªh dh ijh{kk,a xzke iapk;r fcyiqjk {ks=kUrxZr lsaV esjh ,e-,l- Ldwy Ogh-,Q- ls gh dh gS ,oa mldh ek¡ lq’khyk iz/kku ds uke xzke fcyiqjk esa edku gS blh izdkj fodkl fo’odekZ ftlds 75 izfr’kr vad gS] dks LFkkuh; fuoklh ugha ekurs gq, mldk vkosnu i= Hkhmls lqus fcuk vekU; dj fn;k x;k gS tcfd xzke iapk;r fcyiqjk esa mldh ek¡ eerk fo’odekZ ds uke edku gS o xzke iapk;r fcyiqjk }kjk mlds firk cnzh izlkn fo’odekZ ds uke jk’ku dkMZ tkjh fd;k x;k gSA jk’ku dkMZ esa fodkl fo’odekZ dk Hkh uke gS bl izdkj mijksDr nksuksa mEehnokjksa dh jathr ;kno ls vf/kd vad gksus o muds ik= gksus ds ckotwn Hkh muds vkosnu fof/k fo:) rjhds ls fujLr fd, x, gSA mijksDr foospuk ds ifjizs{; esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ¼eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r iukxj½ }kjk iapk;r dehZ ds p;u gsrq dh xbZ laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh fof/k fo:) gksus ls fujLr dh tkrh gS o muds }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 25-2-2009 lfgr fnukad 4-3-2009 ds }kjk iznRr lfpoh; vf/kdkj laca/kh vkns’k Hkh fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa izdj.k xzke iapk;r fcyiqjk dks bl funsZ’k ds lkFk izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gS fd og uohu foKfIr tkjh dj bl vkns’k dh izkfIr ds 30 fnol ds vanj ‘kklu ds funsZ’kksa o fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ds vuq:i iapk;r dehZ dh fu;qfDr dh fof/kor dk;Zokgh iw.kZ djsaA xzke iapk;r }kjk fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa iapk;r dehZ dh dk;Zokgh iw.kZ u fd, tkus ij iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 86¼2½ ds rgr fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh dyDVj }kjk dh tkosA /kkjk 86¼2½ ds rgr dk;Zokgh gksus dh fLFkfr esa p;u dk;Zokgh laiUu djus gsrq ftyk Lrj ls fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh dks vf/kd`r fd;k tkosA bl vkns’k dh ,d izfr blh okn oLrq ls lacaf/kr izdj.k dz- 360@ch&121@08@09 dq- xhrk dksy fo:) e-iz- ‘kklu o vU; izdj.k esa Hkh layXu dh tkosA** 6. The Collector vide letter dated 18.10.2007 directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pan agar to visit the concerned Gram Panchayat and as per the terms and conditions initiate proceedings for appointment of Panchayat Karmi. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Panagar had not followed the directions. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat was not intimated in this regard. On the contrary the Chief Executive Officer vide letter dated 1311.2007 had directed the Gram Sahayak to receive the applications, convene a meeting of Gram Panchayat and on the basis of merit, selection of Panchayat Karmi was made. 7. The Gram Sahayak in compliance of the directions issued by the Chief Executive Officer had received the applications but no meeting was convened by the Gram Sahayak for examination of the applications ane preparation of merit list. Total 36 applications were received which were forwarded by Gram Sahayak to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Panagar on 17.11.2007. As per the requirement, 7 days notice was not issued. Neither Sarpanch nor the Members of the Gram Panchayat were consulted and their consent was also not obtained. Even on the notice issued by the Gram Sahayak, the Panchnama does not contain the signatures of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch or other Panchas. For inviting applications only 3 days time between 14.11.2007 and 16.11.2007 was given, while as per the scheme of the Government dated 27.1.2006, 7 days notice was provided. 8. That the Chief Executive Officer had sent panel of 3 persons on 28.11.2007 to District Office containing names of Rakesh Sharma, Kartik Patel and Ranjeet Yadav appellant herein. While out of 36 applications 23 were eligible candidates The Chief Executive Officer had not prepared merit list. The recommended candidate Rakesh Sharma was a brother-inlaw dewar of Panch Sunita Sharma and Kartik Patel was a student of Engineering. Both were not eligible but the panel was prepared of such persons just to extend benefit to the appellant Ranjeet Yadav. 9. That the Chief Executive Officer had not disclosed the fact that the appellant is an advocate and a criminal case under section 294, 506/34 IPC read with section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act was pending against the appellant before the Special Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. He was on bail. 9. That the Chief Executive Officer had not disclosed the fact that the appellant is an advocate and a criminal case under section 294, 506/34 IPC read with section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act was pending against the appellant before the Special Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. He was on bail. Apart from this, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bilpura had drawn the attention of the Chief Executive Officer of these facts vide letter dated 5.4.2008, 16.2.2009 and 3.3.2009. The Additional Commissioner recorded a finding that the Chief Executive Officer issued an order dated 25.2.2009 by which appellant Ranjeet Yadav was appointed as Panchayat Karmi while Geeta Kol was placed in the waiting list. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Panagar in the proposal dated 28.11.2007 had recommended the name of3 candidates namely Rakesh Sharma, Kartik Patel and Ranjeet Yadav but in that list, name of Geeta Kol was not recommended then how she was placed in the waiting list by itself was suspicious. One more candidate Ku. Ganga Pradhan who achieved 77.4% marks in class 10th was more meritorious in comparison to appellant Ranjeet Yadav who has achieved 71.8% but her application was rejected. She had passed High School, Higher Secondary from St. Marry M.S School Y.F. within the limits of Gram Panchayat Bilpura. Her mother Sushila Pradhan was having house at village Bilpura. Similarly, one Vikas Vishwakarma who had achieved 75% marks, his candidature was also rejected on the ground that he was not the local resident while a house in the name of his mother Mamta Vishwakarma was situated within the limits of Gram Panchayat Bilpura and a ration card was also issued in his father's name, Badri Prasad. So these two candidates who were more meritorious, had achieved the higher marks, their candidatures were illegally rejected. The Aqditional Commissioner after considering all these glaring facts found it appropriate to cancel the entire process of selection of Panchayat Karmi. He 1 ad also set aside the order under section 89 of the Act, conferring powers of Secretary on the appellant. In his order no fault is found and the learned Single Judge after considering the aforesaid findings which were recorded by the Additional Commissioner, if dismissed the writ petition, no fault is found. 10. This appeal is found without merit and is dismissed with cost.