Judgment This order shall also govern disposal of W. P. No. 2803/2010, which is the petition filed by respondent No. 5. Short facts of the case are that an advertisement was published by respondent No. 4 for the post of Panchayat Karmi. Twenty applications were received. After scrutiny list was prepared in which name of petitioner No. 1 Rajendra was shown at Serial No. 1 and name of petitioner No. 2 Vijay was shown at Serial No. 4 while name of respondent No. 5 Shanti was shown at serial No. 7. Vide order dated 29-9-2007 respondent No. 3 appointed respondent No. 5 on the post of Panchayat Karmi. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29-9-2007 petitioners filed an appeal before Collector, Barwani. Respondent No. 4 also filed an appeal against the order dated 29-9-2007 before Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore. Vide order dated 4-11-2008 Commissioner, Indore dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No. 4. Vide order dated 27-1-2009 Collector, Barwani also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 4-11-2008 writ petition was filed, which was numbered as W. P. No. 7588/2008 and was disposed of with certain directions vide order dated 10-8-2009. Against the order dated 4-11-2008 passed by Commissioner, Indore, respondent No. 4 filed a revision petition before the State Government, which was allowed and the order dated 29-9-2007 passed by respondent No. 3 was quashed against which respondent No. 5 has filed a writ petition, which is numbered as W. P. No. 2803/2010. Against the dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioners vide order dated 27-1-2009 by Collector, Barwani W. P. No. 6001/2009 has been filed by the present petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that since the petitioners were meritorious and were at serial Nos. 1 and 4 while respondent No. 5 was at serial No. 7, therefore, order dated 29-9-2007 passed by CEO respondent No. 3 is illegal and deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that candidatures of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that petitioner No. 2 is not resident of the same Gram Panchayat, which is not correct as is evident from the certificate annexed. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the order dated 27-1-2007 passed by Collector, Barwani and order dated 29-9-2007 passed by CEO, Janpad Panchayat, be quashed. 3. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the order dated 27-1-2007 passed by Collector, Barwani and order dated 29-9-2007 passed by CEO, Janpad Panchayat, be quashed. 3. In W. P. No. 2803/2010, which is the petition filed by respondent No. 5, it is submitted that against the order dated 27-1-2007 remedy was available to the respondent No. 4 to file appeal before the Collector but no appeal was filed by respondent No. 4 before the Collector and the appeal was filed before the Commissioner, who was having no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the appellate authority is Collector. It is submitted that no resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat to file appeal, therefore, appeal was filed by respondent No. 4 in individual capacity. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 was having no authority to file appeal in his individual capacity. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Gram Panchayat, Bamrol vs. Jagdish Singh Rawat, reported in 2008(3) MPLJ 127 , wherein Division Bench of this Court held that having power to sue or to be sued it has to authorize somebody to act on its behalf and without the resolution by authorizing any person to sue on behalf of the Panchayat, the Sarpanch cannot sue and file an appeal independently. It was also held that writ appeal as filed by the Sarpanch is incompetent and not maintainable. Learned counsel submits that in view of this also the respondent No. 4 was having no authority to file appeal before Commissioner and also the writ before this Court and also revision before the State Government. Learned counsel submits that the eligibility of respondent No. 5 was also challenged on the ground that respondent No. 5 is not resident of the village. It is submitted that Collector found the domicile certificate issued to respondent No. 5 is genuine. The complaint was dismissed, therefore, validity of the domicile certificate has attained finality. Learned counsel submits that against the order passed by Collector, remedy of appeal was available to the petitioners, but no appeal was filed by the petitioners before the commissioner, hence the order passed by collector also attains finality. The complaint was dismissed, therefore, validity of the domicile certificate has attained finality. Learned counsel submits that against the order passed by Collector, remedy of appeal was available to the petitioners, but no appeal was filed by the petitioners before the commissioner, hence the order passed by collector also attains finality. It is submitted that in the circumstances petition filed by the petitioners W. P. No. 6001/2009 be dismissed and the W. P. No. 2803/2010 filed by respondent No. 5 be allowed and the order dated 21-12-2009 passed by the State Government be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for other respondents submit that still the enquiry is going on about the validity of the domicile certificate. Undisputedly respondent No. 5 was appointed vide order dated 29-9-2007 by respondent No. 3. Petitioners have filed the appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated 27-1-2009. No appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner while remedy was available to file appeal and directly writ petition was filed. Since efficacious remedy was available to the petitioners, which was not availed, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. So far as writ petition filed by respondent No. 5 is concerned, against the order dated 29-9-2007 respondent No. 4 has filed the' appeal before Commissioner, Revenue Division, in his individual capacity. Since the respondent No. 4 is Sarpanch, therefore, appeal could have been filed on behalf of Gram Panchayat after passing the resolution and not by Sarpanch in his individual capacity. Apart from that appeal was filed before the Collector and not before the Commissioner. It is true that matter came up for hearing in earlier round of litigation but that fact cannot be brought before the Revenue Commissioner. Since the revision petition filed by respondent No. 4 before State Government was against the order dated 4-11-2008 passed by Commissioner, Indore Division, therefore, no order could have been passed by the State Government in the revision petition. In view of this petition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed and petition filed by respondent No. 5 stands allowed and the order dated 21-12-2009 passed by the State Government stands quashed. 6. With the aforesaid observations both the petitions stand disposed of. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of W. P. No. 2803/2010. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.