Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 509 (MP)

Ramprakash Banskar v. State of M. P.

2012-05-08

R.S.JHA

body2012
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent No. 2, Collector, Tikamgarh, to decide the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Revision Case No. 27/Revision/2006-07. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the Gram Panchayat, Poha, undertook the proceedings for making appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary in which the respondent No. 4 and others participated but in which the petitioner did not participate. The respondent No. 4 was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi vide resolution dated 14-3-2005. The appointment of respondent No. 4 was assailed by one Shri Indrapal son of Dhuram Yadav before the S.D.O. which challenge was dismissed by the S.D.O., Niwari, District Tikamgarh by order dated 20-3-2006. 3. In the aforesaid proceedings before the S.D.O. the petitioner had filed an application for impleading him as a respondent which was rejected by final order dated 20-3-2006, being aggrieved by which the petitioner had filed a revision before the Additional Collector, Tikamgarh in which, allegedly, the petitioner filed an application for withdrawal and accordingly by the impugned order dated 19-12-2006 the revision filed by the petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner immediately thereafter on 19-12-2006 filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for recall of the order stating therein that the order for withdrawal on his behalf in the revision filed by him was in fact obtained by misrepresenting and misleading the petitioner. As the said application was not decided, he has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Shri Vinod Katare misled him into filing an application along with an affidavit for withdrawal by telling him that the affidavit was in fact needed for seeking adjournment and in such circumstances the Collector be directed to consider and decide his application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for recall of the order of withdrawal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, per contra, submits that the petitioner did not apply for or participate in the selection proceedings for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Gram Panchayat, Poha. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, per contra, submits that the petitioner did not apply for or participate in the selection proceedings for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Gram Panchayat, Poha. It is stated that he did not, at any point of time, assail his exclusion during the proceedings for selection and it was for the first time, when Indrapal filed an appeal against the appointment of respondent No. 4, that he chose to file an application for impleading him as a party which was rejected and the order of rejection of the application has also been affirmed. It is submitted that in such circumstances as the petitioner has failed to challenge the original order rejecting the appeal filed by Indrapal and also consciously filed an affidavit for withdrawal of the revision, no case for entertaining the present petition is made out. 7. The learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents submits that the revision filed by the petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn on the application and affidavit of the petitioner himself, which is not denied, and in such circumstances, the petition be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 9. From a perusal of the averments made by the petitioner in the application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is clear that the petitioner has not denied the fact that the application for withdrawal of the revision was filed with his signatures and that he has also filed an affidavit along with the same. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was not a contestant or a participant in the selection proceedings and was therefore stranger to the same. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that as the petitioner has no right or locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondent No. 4, no useful purpose would be served by directing the Collector to decide the application of the petitioner. 10. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.