Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 16 (MP)

Ramgopal v. State of M. P.

2012-01-04

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2012
ORDER Kemkar, J. -- 1. This intra-Court appeal is filed against the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.9563/2010(S). Brief facts relevant for deciding this appeal may be stated as under : 2. On 29.7.2007, an advertisement was issued by the Gram Panchayat, Chikli, Manasa inviting applications for filling the post of Panchayat Karmi. The appellant and the fourth respondent-Ramniwas Meghwal submitted their applications amongst others. The Gram Panchayat vide resolution, dated 18.8.2007 resolved to appoint the appellant herein, on the ground that he had obtained highest marks amongst all the candidates in 12th standard examination. In pursuance of the said resolution dated 18.8.2007, a letter of appointment was issued in his favour on 31.8.2007. 3. Aggrieved, the third respondent-Ramniwas Meghwal submitted a representation before the Collector, Neemuch. The Collector, Neemuch registered it as Case No.108/B-121/2007-08 and issued notice to the Gram Panchayat as also to the appellant. Thereafter, the Collector gave opportunity of hearing to the parties and vide order dated 28.5.2008 set aside the appointment of the appellant. The Collector observed that the appointment was made ignoring the marks obtained by the third respondent. The said order passed by the Collector was assailed by the appellant before the Commissioner, Ujjain Division in Appeal No.126/2007-08. The Commissioner vide order dated 2.3.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant and maintained the order passed by the Collector by holding that the marks of 10th standard and not of 12th standard ought to have been considered, while preparing the merit list. The said orders were challenged by the appellant before the State Minister, Panchayat and Rural Development in Revision No.22/2010. The State Minister, vide order dated 2.6.2010 allowed the revision filed by the appellant by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner and the Collector and approved the appointment of the appellant. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the State Minister, the third respondent filed Writ Petition No.9563/2010(s). The learned Single Judge by order dated 16.11.2011 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the State Minister. Aggrieved, the appellant, who was fourth respondent before the writ Court, has filed this appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005. 5. The learned Single Judge by order dated 16.11.2011 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the State Minister. Aggrieved, the appellant, who was fourth respondent before the writ Court, has filed this appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Collector could not have entertained the representation against the resolution and the appointment order, in view of the fact that the order of appointment passed by the Gram Panchayat was appealable before the Sub-Divisional Officer. In the circumstances, according to him, the orders passed by the Collector, affirmed by the Commissioner were rightly set aside by the State Minister and the writ Court has committed error in quashing the order of the State Minister and further erred in not considering about the non-maintainability of the representation before the Collector. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, we find no merit in the same. In our view, there exists no ground to interfere into the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order of the State Minister and maintaining the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. In the advertisement for the appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi issued by the Gram Panchayat, the qualification prescribed was passing of 10th standard examination in 10+2 pattern. However, it is revealed that while passing the resolution the Gram Panchayat took into consideration the marks of 12th standard and did not award any marks to the fourth respondent (writ petitioner) either for 10th or for 12th standard. The learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that though the fourth respondent was having more marks in 10th standard examination, his claim was not considered by the Gram Panchayat while passing the resolution, remanded the matter to the Gram Panchayat for passing a fresh resolution. It is thus clear that the appellant though was having less marks in the 10th standard as compared to the fourth respondent was given appointment by excluding the fourth respondent from consideration. It is thus clear that the appellant though was having less marks in the 10th standard as compared to the fourth respondent was given appointment by excluding the fourth respondent from consideration. The appointment made by the Gram Panchayat was thus clearly in violation of the guidelines/circulars issued by the State Government in that regard as also the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Devilal s/o Bherulal Patidar v. State of M.P. and others’s [Writ Petition No.5579/2008(s), decided on 20.3.2009]. 7. True it is that the order of appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi issued by Gram Panchayat was appealable before the Sub-Divisional Officer but taking into account that the matter has by now travelled up to the three authorities under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the fact that the appointment order was ex facie illegal, we decline interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal [ AIR 2002 SC 33 ], in which it has been held by the Supreme Court that powers conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it. The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The look out of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle, but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. It has been further observed by the Supreme Court that if justice became the by-product of an erroneous view of law, the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. 8. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge was right in quashing the order passed by the State Minister and was justified in maintaining the order of the Collector and the Commissioner remanding the matter to the Gram Panchayat to pass fresh resolution, in accordance with law. 9. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge was right in quashing the order passed by the State Minister and was justified in maintaining the order of the Collector and the Commissioner remanding the matter to the Gram Panchayat to pass fresh resolution, in accordance with law. 9. As a result, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.