Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 701 (MP)

Devendra Kumar Pandey v. State of M. P.

2014-06-23

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2014
Judgment: K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. Though the writ petition is listed today for hearing on I.A. No. 6621/2014, for vacating stay, in view of the fact that the jurisdiction of the revisional authority is called in question in the present writ petition and only on this count the writ petition is admitted for final hearing, and an interim stay is granted, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. Undisputedly, a selection process was started for appointment on the post of Village Employment Assistant under a Scheme. The Scheme contemplates that after selection, appointment orders are required to be issued. In case anybody is aggrieved by any such appointment, he/she can approach the Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeal. However, under the Scheme no further provisions of filing appeals or revisions are made and it is said that the order passed by the Appellate Authority would be final. Thus, in case anybody was aggrieved by selection, could have approached the competent Appellate Authority that means the District Programme Coordinator (District Collector). 3. The respondent No. 8 was selected on the post of Village Employment Assistant which order was called in question by the present petitioner before the Collector in his capacity as District Programme Coordinator. The Collector after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, decided the appeal, allowed the same and directed removal of name of respondent No. 8 from select list with a direction to appoint petitioner in his place. Feeling aggrieved by the order, respondent No. 8 approached the Additional Commissioner by way of filing revision and since the said revision was allowed, this writ petition is required to be filed. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the Scheme made since there was no prescription of a remedy of revision before the Additional Commissioner and since the Scheme is separately made, the provisions of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, are not made applicable to such a Scheme, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is beyond his jurisdiction and authority. In view of this, it is submitted that the order is liable to be set aside. 5. In view of this, it is submitted that the order is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 contended that even if there was no provision made under the Scheme for filing of a revision, the power could have been exercised by the Additional Commissioner. 6. In view of the fact that there is no provision for filing of appeal or revision before the Additional Commissioner under the Scheme and the rules aforesaid are not made applicable to such appointment, the Additional Commissioner or Commissioner would not be empowered to entertain any revision or appeal against the order passed by the Collector in his capacity as District Project Coordinator under the Scheme. That being so, the order of the Additional Commissioner cannot be sustained. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8 submitted that if a wrong forum was opted by the respondent No. 8, right to file appropriate proceeding may not be jeopardized and a liberty may be granted to challenge the order passed by the Collector. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid, while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order dated 20.03.2014 (Annexure P/19), the respondent No. 8 is granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum to challenge the order dated 25.01.2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Sidhi. 9. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.