Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 273 (MP)

Deepak Kumar Tyagi v. State of M. P.

2016-04-01

SANJAY YADAV

body2016
ORDER 1. I.A. No.1853/2016 is an application for disposal of writ petition in view of decision in Suresh v. Chief Executive Officer [ 2012(I) MPWN 73 = 2012(1) MPHT 74 ], wherein, Division Bench of this High Court has held that the appointment of Panchayat Karmi can only be on the basis of merits and not by majority of votes. Paragraph 9 of said judgment culls out the said proposition in following terms : “9. So far as the appellant's contention that he could have been appointed as Panchayat Karmi on the basis of the majority of votes in view of the Circular dated 27.1.2006 which was prevailing at the time of making of his appointment is concerned, we find no merit in this submission. In the Circular dated 27.1.2006 it was provided that the list of all the applications received by the Gram Panchayat for the said post was to be prepared by the Gram Panchayat on the basis of seniority and merit. It further provided that after preparation of such list, the eligible candidate, as per seniority of such list, was to be appointed. Therefore, in our considered view as per the scheme of appointment of Panchayat Karmi the merit was required to have been observed even as per the Circular dated 27.1.2006 which was in vogue when the appellant was appointed. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that in making the appointments prior to the Circular dated 13.8.2007 there was no necessity of observing of merit is, therefore, wholly misconceived. We find that in the present case ignoring the merit the appointment was made by the Gram Panchayat only on the basis of majority of votes. In such circumstances the appellant's appointment which was made giving complete go bye to the merit could not have been sustained and the same has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge and the matter has rightly been remanded to the Gram Panchayat for passing fresh resolution on the basis of merit.” 2. Contention of the petitioner is that in the present case, the respondent No.8 was appointed on 3.9.2007 on the basis of majority of votes passed by Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat, Rewa. Whereas, the circular-dated 13.8.2007 (Annexure P-3) issued by State Government envisaged the appointment of Panchayat Karmi on merits. Contention of the petitioner is that in the present case, the respondent No.8 was appointed on 3.9.2007 on the basis of majority of votes passed by Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat, Rewa. Whereas, the circular-dated 13.8.2007 (Annexure P-3) issued by State Government envisaged the appointment of Panchayat Karmi on merits. It is contended that the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat was not in consonance with the State Government's policy led to its rejection by the Collector, accepting the recommendation by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mauganj (Annexure R-8/4). The decision, it is urged, having been affirmed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa vide order-dated 11.2.2008 has erroneously being interfered in Revision by the State Minister by misconstruing the policy dated 13.8.2007, by the order dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure P-13). 3. The reasons for setting aside the order passed by Collector and the Commissioner, find mention in revisional order in the following terms:- **fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd ds rdksZ ,oa vihy esa mBk;s x, rF;ksa ij fopkj djrs gq, vèkhuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds vfHky[kksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k gSA fo}ku vfèkoDrk us vius rdksZ esa crk;k gS fd e/;izns'k 'kklu iapk;r ,oa xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx] ea=ky;] oYyHk Hkou] Hkksiky ds i= Øekad@ih-lh-@i-&4@2582 Hkksiky fnukad 13 vxLr 2007 ds ekè;e ls ys[k fd;k x;k gS fd **ftu xzke iapk;rksa esa iapk;rdehZ dh fu;qfDr gks pqdh gS mu izdj.kksa esa ;g 'krZ ykxw ugha gksxh**A bl rjg izLrqr izdj.k esa fnukad 13 vxLr 2007 dk gokyk nsrs gq;s vèkhuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vihy fujLr dj nh xbZ Fkh] tcfd dksbZ fu;e dkuwu cuk;k tkrk gS rks mldk izHkko Hkwry{kh izHkko ls u gksdj Hkfo";y{kh dk;Zokfg;ksa ij iMrk gS A fdUrq v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vk;qDr jhok laHkkx jhok }kjk 'kklu ds vkns'k fnukad 13-8-2007 dks utj vankt djrs gq, vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS tks fd U;k; n`"Vkarks ,oa uSlfxZd U;k; fl)karks ds foifjr gksus ds dkj.k vk;qDr jhok laHkkx jhok ds izdj.k dzekad 189@vihy@07&08 esa ifjr vkns'k fnukad 11-2-2008 ,oa dysDVj jhok ds vkns'k fnukad 18-1-2008 esa ifjr vkns'kksa dks fujLr fd;k tk,A fopkjksijkUr vk;qDr jhok laHkkx jhok }kjk ifjr vkns'k fnukad 11-2-2008 ,oa dysDVj jhok ds vkns'k fnukad 18-1-2008 dks fujDr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa xzke iapk;r fM?kokj 393 ds fu;qfDr i= fnukad 3-9-2007 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dh lfpoh; vf/klwpuk tkjh gksA vkns'k ifjr] tks i`Fkd ls layXu gSA loZlacaf/kr lwfpr gksA izdj.k iath ls i`Fkd gksdj nkf[kd nrj gksA** 4. Evidently, the revisional authority has glossed over the fact that respondent No.8 was appointed after coming into existence of the policy dated 13.8.2007. In other words, the revisional authority overlooked the fact that the appointment of Panchayat Karmi, more particularly, after issuance of circular dated 13.8.2007 could have been only on the basis of merit and not majority of votes. The circular in its last paragraph stipulates in clear terms that the eligible candidates are to be appointed strictly in accordance with merit : **mDr laca/k esa Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ftu xzke iapk;rksa esa vHkh Hkh iapk;rdehZ ds in fjDr gS muesa iapk;rdehZ dh fu;qfDr izkIr vkosnu i=ksa esa ls fu/kkZfjr U;wure vgZrkèkkjh vH;FkhZ dks esfjV ds vk/kkj ij p;u dj fu;qfDr dh tk,xhA ;g fu;qfDr pkgs xzke iapk;r }kjk dh tk, vFkok dysDVj }kjk dh tk,] esfjV dk ikyu gj Lrj ij fd;k tk,xkA ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ftu xzke iapk;rksa esa iapk;rdehZ dh fu;qfDr gks pqdh gS mu izdj.kksa esa ;g 'krZ ykxw ugha gksxhA iqu% ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh fjfDr;ksa dh iwfrZ esa esfjV ds vkèkkj ij gksxhA** 5. The revisional order under challenge, when adjudged on above analysis, cannot be given the stamp of approval and is quashed. Consequently, the Orders-dated 18.1.2008 and 11.2.2008 are restored. 6. Since the relief sought in present petition is only for quashment of order-dated 21.7.2008, this Court refrain from dwelling on the aspect as to the action taken by Collector in exercise of powers conferred under section 86(2) of M.P. Panchayat Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. 7. The petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.