Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 862 (MP)

Ramprakash Pandey v. State of M. P.

2012-09-04

RAJENDRA MENON

body2012
Judgment Challenging the preparation of merit list for appointment on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak ordered by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Chhatarpur; and, the consequential order passed on 30.4.2012 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bijawar appointing respondent No.6 on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was issued by the Gram Panchayat concerned vide Annexure P/1, calling for eligible candidates to submit their candidature for appointment to the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. According to the advertisement, the applications were to be submitted between 8.2.2012 upto 23.3.2010. Petitioner submitted his application vide Annexure P/2 on 22.2.2010 and in accordance to the applications received till the last date, the Gram Panchayat prepared a merit list – Annexure P/3, in which petitioner’s name was kept at Serial No.1, having obtained 68% marks. Thereafter, a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat proposing appointment of the petitioner to the post in question and subsequently, the matter went to the Janpad Panchayat, Bijawar, which approved the resolution and prepared merit list placing petitioner at Serial No.1, on the basis of the marks obtained by him i.e…68% marks, in the qualifying examination. Annexure P/5 is the merit list prepared by the Janpad Panchayat. According to the petitioner, when the matter was so pending, respondent No.6 Shri Lakhanlal Tiwari submitted an application to the authorities concerned on 3.3.2012 vide Annexure P/7 alongwith necessary certificates and based on this application submitted by him, a fresh merit list was published by the Jila Panchayat, placing respondent No.6 at Serial No.1 on the ground that he has obtained 81.88% marks and as he is appointed in pursuance to the said merit list, challenge to the appointment of respondent No.6 is made in this writ petition. 3. The only ground canvassed for challenging the said appointment is that respondent No.6 did not submit his application between the period 8.2.2012 to 23.2.2010, his application was submitted on 3.2.2012 and accepting his application after a period of more than two years of the last date fixed i.e… 23.2.2010, the appointment made is said to be unsustainable. 3. The only ground canvassed for challenging the said appointment is that respondent No.6 did not submit his application between the period 8.2.2012 to 23.2.2010, his application was submitted on 3.2.2012 and accepting his application after a period of more than two years of the last date fixed i.e… 23.2.2010, the appointment made is said to be unsustainable. Accordingly, in sum and substance claim of the petitioner is that the candidature of respondent No.6 has been considered after a period of two years and even though he did not submit any application before the cut-off date i.e… 23.2.2010, but with a view to give him undue benefit, his application has been considered and he is appointed in an illegal manner. 4. Respondent No.6 represented by Smt. Amrit Ruprah has refuted the aforesaid and brings to the notice of this Court an application submitted by him to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat on 23.2.2010 i.e… on the last date, as per the advertisement, as contained in Annexure R-6/B, before the cut-off date and thereafter when the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and certain office bearers with a view to somehow oust respondent No.6 from the selection process and wanted to grant undue benefit to the petitioner, they started manipulating the records. Respondent No.6 sought for information under the RTI Act, when the same was not given, he raised complaints before the competent authority and an inquiry was conducted, prima facie finding the Secretary to have deliberately removed the application of respondent No.6 - Shri Lakhanlal Tiwari, he was suspended and action taken against him. Bringing to the notice of this Court documents in support of the aforesaid contention, filed alongwith the return as Annexures R/6-B to R/6-H, Smt. Amrit Ruprah submits that finally the matter was taken up by the Zila Panchayat, certain inquiry was conducted and it was found that respondent No.6 has infact submitted his candidature on 23.2.2010, it was deliberately removed from the records by the Secretary and finding the claim of respondent No.6 to be tenable as well as more meritorious, the impugned action is taken. Accordingly, Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel, submits that in this case the appointment of respondent No.6, which is in accordance to law, should be upheld and the petition dismissed. 5. Accordingly, Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel, submits that in this case the appointment of respondent No.6, which is in accordance to law, should be upheld and the petition dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the rival contentions, it is clear that the dispute in this writ petition is as to whether respondent No.6 submitted the application before the cut-off date i.e…. 23.2.2010, or the contention of the petitioner that the application was submitted after a period of more than two years is correct or not? 6. This is a question of fact, which has to be adjudicated on proper inquiry being conducted after recording of evidence and when the appointment in question is subject to statutory appeal and revision rules, where a detailed inquiry can be conducted by the statutory appellate authority, interference into the matter by this Court when serious disputed questions of fact are involved, is not called for. This Court has consistently held in various cases that appointment to the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak is subject to statutory appeal and revision rules framed under the MP Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and, therefore, it is a fit case where the petition should be dismissed and the petitioner granted liberty to take recourse to the remedy available of filing an appeal, as the dispute involved in this writ petition does not involve any question of law or interpretation of statutory provisions. It is a pure question of fact which has to be inquired into by the competent authority. 7. Accordingly, finding the petition to be not maintainable, in view of the disputed question of fact and further finding an efficacious alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner, where a dispute of the present nature can be inquired into, the petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority and if an appeal is preferred within a period of 30 days from today, the competent authority shall decide the same in accordance with law after hearing all concerned and shall not dismiss it on the ground of delay. 8. Petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority and if an appeal is preferred within a period of 30 days from today, the competent authority shall decide the same in accordance with law after hearing all concerned and shall not dismiss it on the ground of delay. 8. As the petition has been dismissed by this Court, the authorities are free to process the appointment of respondent No.6 in accordance with law and proceed in the matter, and proceed to permit him to work subject to orders as may be passed by the appellate authority. 9. Accordingly, with the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed.