ORDER 1. After notice, matter with consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard. 2. Issue as to whether an incumbent, though most meritorious, can be denied appointment for the post of Panchayat Karmi on the ground of his/her being not the resident of the village where the appointment is made has been answered in following terms by Division Bench of this Court in Raghvendra Singh v. State of M.P. and others [2015(3) MPLJ 356] : “7. … We find that in the matter of appointment of Panchayat Karmi, the scheme formulated is by virtue of the powers available with the State Government under the M.P.Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Panchayat Secretary is a post in District cadre and their services are transferable from on Panchayat to another within the same District. Once the appointment is made to a post where an employee being of whichever locality or village is liable to be transferred to another Panchayat in a village within the District. The question of appointment of Panchayat Karmi or Panchayat Secretary being a local resident of the Panchayat will not apply. Once a cadre is formulated districtwise and an employee borne in the said cadre is liable to be transferred from one village to another, it can never be the intention of the executive authorities to have a Panchayat Karmi who is resident of a local authority. It is common ground and judicial notice can be taken of a fact that Panchayat Secretary and Panchayat Karmi are being regularly transferred from one Panchayat to another in the same District as a policy of the State Government and if such a transfer policy is implemented, it is clear intention of the rule maker that requirement of a person being a local resident is not at all mandatory in nature. That apart, the provision of the scheme as reproduced hereinabove only indicates that it is directory in nature and not mandatory. If a more meritorious candidate is available, his candidature cannot be rejected or he cannot be denied appointment only on the ground that he is not resident of local village where the Panchayat is situated. Such a reason for denying his appointment will be in violation of the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which could not be the intention of rule makers. Such a reason for denying his appointment will be in violation of the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which could not be the intention of rule makers. All these aspects have been considered by the learned writ Court while rejecting the contention of the appellant and we find no reason to take a different view.” 3. Case at hand is not different to that of the matter before Division Bench. 4. Out of 19 candidates who applied for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi Gram Panchayat Karrail, Janpad Panchayat Kusumi, District Sidhi, Petitioner secured 62.9%, respondent No.4 : 48.8%, respondent No.5 : 56.6%. Being the most meritorious, petitioner was placed at serial No.1 in the select list vide resolution dated 11.4.2008. The resolution however was not approved by the prescribed authority, vide his order dated 16.6.2008, in an Appeal preferred by respondent No.5. Being the most meritorious, petitioner was placed at serial No.1 in the select list vide resolution dated 11.4.2008. The resolution however was not approved by the prescribed authority, vide his order dated 16.6.2008, in an Appeal preferred by respondent No.5. The Prescribed Authority observed: ^^izdj.k esa layXu xzke iapk;r dh dk;Zokgh iath ,oa vkosnu&i=ksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA xzke iapk;r dh dk;Zokgh fnukad 11-4-2008 ds vuqlkj loZlEefr ls Jherh yhykorh ;kno dks iapk;rdehZ fu;qfDr djus dk izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA vkosnu&i=ksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ftlesa yhykorh ;kno }kjk xzke epsMh dk fuokl izek.k&i= fd;k x;k gSA U;k;ky; }kjk ek¡xs tkus ij mlds }kjk ewy izek.k&i= is'k ugha fd;k x;kA fnukad 31-5-2008 dks vuqifLFkr jgus ij mrjoknhx.k ds fo:} ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dh xbZA vihykFkhZ }kjk mrjoknh dz-3 ds fuokl izek.k&i= dh rglhynkj dqleh }kjk tkjh dh xbZ lR;&izfrfyfi ds vuqlkj og xzke d.kksfr;k dh fuoklh gSA bl izdkj mrjoknh dz-3 }kjk izLrqr fuokl izek.k&i= lafnX/k izrhr gksrk gSA vU; vihykFkhZ jkedj.k flag }kjk izLrqr vihy ds ifjizs{; esa foKfIr dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA xzke iapk;r }kjk tkjh foKkiu esa vgZrkvksa ds in dz-3 esa vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr@fiNM+k oxZ ,oa efgyk mEehnokj dks izkFkfedrk fn, tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS ijarq izkFkfedrk fdl vk/kkj ij nh tk,xh bldk mYys[k ugha gSA D;k de vad gksus ij Hkh bu oxksZ ds mEehnokj dh fu;qDrh dh tk ldrh gS ;k ugha bldk mYys[k foKkiu esa ugha fd;k x;k x;k gSA bl izdkj foKkiu Hkh Li"V ugha gSaA ;gh dkj.k gS fd v-t-tk- oxZ ds O;fDr }kjk de vad gksus ij Hkh vihy izLrqr dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj xzke iapk;r {ks= djSy }kjk ikfjr izLrko dz-1 fnukad 11-4-2008 oS/kkfud <ax ls ikfjr gqvk ugha ik;k tkrkA vr% nksukas vihysa Lohdkj dh tkdj xzke iapk;r {ks= djSy dk izLrko dz-1 fnukad 11-4-2008 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA laiw.kZ vfHkys[k xzke iapk;r djSy dks ge funsZ'k ds lkFk okil fd;k tkrk gS fd og oS/kkfud <ax ls iqu% foKkiu izdkf'kr dj vkosnu vkeaf=r djsa ,oa fu;ekuqlkj <ax ls iapk;rdehZ dh fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh iqu% dh tk,A ;g vkns'k vihy izdj.k dz-119@7&8 esa Hkh ykxw gksxkA** 5. Evidently, the prescribed authority doubted the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim of being the resident of village Machhedi, Gram Panchayat Karrail and instead found her to be resident of Gram Panchayat Kadhotiya. Accordingly, found her ineligible for appointment as Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Karrail. 6. Evidently, the prescribed authority doubted the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim of being the resident of village Machhedi, Gram Panchayat Karrail and instead found her to be resident of Gram Panchayat Kadhotiya. Accordingly, found her ineligible for appointment as Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Karrail. 6. The ineligibility of petitioner was thus not on the ground of having forged a document but on the ground that she could not satisfactorily establish of being resident of village Machhedi. This takes care of the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.5 that the petitioner since forged a document relating to her residence and therefore, ineligible to be appointed as Panchayat Karmi. The respondent No.5 also did not carry the matter further and it is in this petition have raised the ground of forgery without even assailing the finding by the prescribed authority before whom the issue was raised but not carried forward. Be that as it may. 7. In an Appeal, Collector vide order dated 29.6.2009 set aside the order by prescribed authority on a finding that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the prescribed authority to have entertained an appeal against the resolution. In a Revision, the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, however set aside order of Collector on 13.6.2012, upholding the jurisdiction of prescribed authority in entertaining the appeal against resolution in view of decision in Devidayal Raikwar v. State of M.P. [ 2009(1) JLJ 7 = 2008(4) MPLJ 647 ]. And by relying on the circular dated 27.1.2006 and 13.8.2007, upheld the verdict of the petitioner being not the resident of the Gram Panchayat Karrail. And by relying on the circular dated 27.1.2006 and 13.8.2007, upheld the verdict of the petitioner being not the resident of the Gram Panchayat Karrail. It is observed: ^^6- xzke iapk;r ds dk;Zokgh fooj.k ,oa vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh rFkk dyDVj ds vkns'k dk voyksdu fd;k ,oa mHk;i{k ds rdZ lqus x,A ftlesa muds }kjk esfjV esa p;u dk fu.kZ; fy;k iapk;rdehZ ds laca/k esa iapk;r ekxZnf'kZdk fnukad 12-9-1995 ldqyZj fnukad 27-1-2006] 13-8-2007 bR;kfn gSA lHkh esa iapk;rdehZ dh vgZrk@ik=rk dk mYys[k gS iapk;r }kjk esfjV esa yhyk ;kno dks ik;k fdUrq vU; ik=rk 'krZ Hkh ns[kuk vko';d gS xzke iapk;rdehZ dh vgZrk@ik=rk dk mYys[k gS iapk;r }kjk esfjV esa yhyk ;kno dks ik;k fdarq vU; ik=rk 'krZ Hkh ns[kuk vko';d gS xzke iapk;r dehZ ds fy;s LFkkuh; gksuk vko';d gS rkfd iapk;r ds dk;Z lqpk: :i ls gks ldsA izkIr mUuhl vkosnuksa esa ls dkSu LFkkuh; Fkk ns[kk tkuk Fkk vkosnu ds irs rFkk izLrko ds fooj.k esa Li"V gS fd yhykorh LFkkuh; ugha gS 'kklu ds ;g Hkh funsZ'k gS fd iapk;rdehZ dk dksbZ fj'rsnkj ukrsnkj u gksA bu fcanqvksa ,oa ik=rk vgZrk ds lHkh ekinaMksa dk ijh{k.k iapk;r us ugha fd;kA dyDVj dk U;k; n`"Vkar ftuds vk/kkj ij vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS bu U;k; n`"Vkar ds mijkar ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa iapk;rdehZ dh fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa nsohn;ky jSdckj fo:} 'kklu e-iz- ts ,y ts 2009 ¼1½ 7 iSjk 16 esa Li"V fu.kZ; fn;k gS fd vihykaV U;k;ky; iapk;r ds izLrko ,oa lHkh dk;Zokgh dk ijh{k.k dj fu.kZ; dj ldrs gS iapk;r }kjk ikfjr ladYi 6 ekg rd ikyu u gksus ij lekIr gks tkrk gSA vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh us iapk;r dh dk;Zokgh dks =qfViw.kZ ik;k ;g vkns'k lgh Fkk ,oa /kkjk 85 ds rgr vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh iapk;r dh dk;Zokgh ds fy, l{ke vf/kdkjh gS ijarq iapk;rdehZ ds vkosnudrkZ dk dksbZ nks"k ugha gksrk ;fn iapk;r xyr izfdz;k viukrh gSA vr% dyDVj dk vkns'k iw.kZr% =qfViw.kZ gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ds }kjk iapk;r dk izLrko fujLr djuk mfpr Fkk ijarq u;s fljs ls vkosnu ysus dk vkns'k xyr FkkA vr% iapk;r djSy ,oa 19 vH;FkhZ esa ik= iapk;rdehZ dk p;u djsaA dyDVj dk vkns'k fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh dk u;s vkosnu ysus laca/kh vkns'k fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA fuxjkuh dk fujkdj.k xzke iapk;r djSy dks djus funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os iwoZ esa 19 vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls 'kklu iapk;r foHkkx ds ldqyZj 27-1-2006 ,o a13-8-2007 ,oa izHkko'khy lHkh la'kks/ku dks /;ku esa j[kdj esfjV@LFkkuh;@mez@vgZrk bR;kfn dk /;ku j[kdj p;u djsaA** 8. The finding that the petitioner being not the resident of Gram Panchayat Karrail which render her ineligible for appointment as Panchayat Karmi of said Gram Panchayat though was meritorious runs counter to the law laid down in Raghvendra Singh (supra); therefore, cannot be given the stamp of approval. The order dated 13.6.2012 is set aside. Consequently, the resolution dated 11.4.2008, revives on all fours. Writ petition 9716/2012 is allowed to the extent above. Writ Petition No.14347/2015 : 9. Cause in present petition arises from an order dated 10.10.2015 passed by respondent No.3 and its affirmation by order dated 21.8.2015 during pendency of Writ Petition No.9716/2012 appointing respondent No.6 (respondent No.5 in connected Writ Petition 9716/2012) as Panchayat Karmi Karrail in furtherance to interim order passed in Writ Petition No.9716/2012. 10. Pertinent it is to note that the operation of order dated 10.8.2015 was stayed on 27.8.2015. And with the final decision in Writ Petition 9716/2012 of reviving the resolution dated 11.4.2008, the impugned order dated 10.8.2015 does not survives in the eyes of law. Consequently, it is quashed. Petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.