Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 313 (MP)

Reeta Devi Prajapati v. State of M. P.

2015-03-18

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2015
JUDGMENT : K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in Case No. 01/Revision/08-09, has approached this Court by way of fling this writ petition. The impugned order was essentially passed in a revision fled against the order dated 23.08.2008 by the Additional Collector, Satna, affirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal of the petitioner. 2. The short facts giving rise for fling of this writ petition are that the petitioner and private respondent No. 10 were candidates for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi for which process was initiated on 20th July, 2007 by the Gram Panchayat, Pangara, Janpad Panchayat, Nagoud, District Satna. There were about 19 candidates, who have made the application. The resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat for preparing a list of candidates on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the High School Examination but ultimately it was resolved that the respondent No. 10 be appointed on the post. Since the resolution was passed per majority ignoring the merits of the petitioner, she fled an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer against such appointment. The Appellate Authority initially granted an interim stay but since the appeal itself was dismissed on 24.09.2007, a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Satna. The said revision was also dismissed, therefore, she approached the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa. Since the Commissioner has dismissed the second revision holding that no such second revision was maintainable, this writ petition is required to be fled. 3. It is contended in the petition that since the resolution itself was bad in law as though the merit list was prepared but a less meritorious person was selected and appointed, therefore, it was required to be set aside. Even if that power was not available, since the resolution could be suspended, in fact in terms of interim stay after finding that selection was not rightly done, the Sub Divisional Officer was required to suspend the resolution. Instead the appeal fled by the petitioner has been dismissed. There was no reason recorded in the resolution that a less meritorious person was more suitable for the post, therefore, the resolution was to be set aside. Instead the appeal fled by the petitioner has been dismissed. There was no reason recorded in the resolution that a less meritorious person was more suitable for the post, therefore, the resolution was to be set aside. These aspects have not rightly been considered by the Revisional Authority and, therefore, the orders impugned are bad in law. It is further contended in the writ petition that respondent No. 10 was not a local resident of the area, therefore, was not to be appointed at all. 4. The respondents No. 1 to 6 have fled their return categorically contending that in fact there was no competent appeal before the Appellate Authority as at the best the order of appointment of respondent No. 10 could have been challenged in the appeal and not the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. The objection to that effect was rightly raised and appellate authority after being satisfied with the procedure adopted by the Gram Panchayat in making the selection, has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. A well reasoned order was passed by the Revisional Authority, i.e. the Additional Collector and since no second revision is maintainable against such order, the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa has rightly dismissed the second revision of the petitioner. 5. A return has been fled by the respondent No. 10 contending inter alia that since the recruitment process was started much before coming into force of the circular dated 13.08.2007, it was open to the Gram Panchayat to consider the suitability of the candidates. Merely because of obtaining more marks in the High School Examination, the petitioner was not to be selected. The reasons as to why preference is given to respondent No. 10, have been recorded in the resolution. It was not that by raising hands or casting votes the respondent No. 10 was selected and appointed and, therefore, the Appellate and Revisional Authorities have rightly appreciated these acts and have rejected the claim made by the petitioner in appropriate manner. It is, thus, contended that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Trite it is that the selection, if initiated under the unamended provisions, has to be completed under the said provisions and the amended provisions would not be attracted in such a case. It is, thus, contended that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Trite it is that the selection, if initiated under the unamended provisions, has to be completed under the said provisions and the amended provisions would not be attracted in such a case. The well settled law pronounced by the Apex Court is that if after initiation of process of recruitment any change in the recruitment process is made under the statutory rules, that would not be applicable to the process which has already been commenced before the amendment made in the rules. It is not in dispute that the advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi was issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat on 20.07.2007. It is also not in dispute that before 13th August, 2007, merit based selection was not to be made by the Gram Panchayat. However, it was necessary for the Gram Panchayat to record the reason as to why a person, who is below in the list prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination is being appointed. For the said purpose the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat for selection is required to be examined. The Gram Panchayat while was holding the meeting, was apprised of the process of selection by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The name of respondent No. 10 was already in the list so prepared by the Gram Panchayat. His conduct was known to the members of the Panchayat and it was found that he was already associated with the social work in the village. He was capable of taking up the responsibility of discharging the function as Panchayat Secretary. These all facts were recorded in the resolution and then since the agreement was shown by all Panchas present, it was resolved that the respondent No. 10 be appointed. Accordingly, order dated 01.08.2007 was already issued in his respect appointing him on the post. It appears that the appeal was preferred against this order but not specifically challenging the order, rather challenging the resolution by the petitioner. All these facts were taken note of by the Sub Divisional Officer and it was held that since the suitability of respondent No. 10 was tested by the Panchas present in the meeting and it was resolved to appoint him, the selection of respondent No. 10 was justified. All these facts were taken note of by the Sub Divisional Officer and it was held that since the suitability of respondent No. 10 was tested by the Panchas present in the meeting and it was resolved to appoint him, the selection of respondent No. 10 was justified. It was further found by the Sub Divisional Officer that there was no proof of the fact that said respondent No. 10 was not the local resident of the village where the selection was being made. After recording of these facts, the appeal fled by the petitioner was dismissed. 7. A revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Collector, District Satna, in terms of Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. The Revisional Authority after considering all the facts, has reached to the conclusion that appeal of the petitioner was rightly decided and such an order impugned in the revision was not warranting any interference by the Revisional Authority. After passing of this order, the only remedy available to the petitioner was either to approach the second revisional authority, i.e. the State Government, or to file a writ petition before this Court. However, the petitioner went to the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa by fling the second revision, though the same was not maintainable. The second Revisional Authority has rightly dismissed the revision of the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the appointment of respondent No. 10 was only by raising of hands or casting of votes without considering the merits or de-merits of other candidates, who have applied for or have taken part in such selection. In such circumstances proceedings done by the Gram Panchayat cannot be said to be bad in law. 9. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.