JUDGMENT : Order dated 05/10/2016 passed in Writ Petition No.2088/2006 is being challenged vide this Appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 2. The controversy relates to appointment of the Appellant as Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Surpura vide resolution dated 22/02/2002 which was challenged by one Up-sarpanch and an Ex-Secretary before Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that though not a bonafide resident of the Village Surpura, the Appellant on the basis of forged mark-sheet of Class-V had obtained the bonafide resident certificate. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 30/09/2003 dismissed the Appeal on the finding that dispute relating to appointment of Panchayat Karmi is pending before the Additional Commissioner. However, on remand, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhind caused inquiry and sought report from Thasildar, Bhind in regard to the allegation qua obtaining bonafide resident certificate on forged Class-V mark-sheet. 3. Report was submitted by Tahsildar on 31/05/2005. 4. However, on remand, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhind caused inquiry and sought report from Thasildar, Bhind in regard to the allegation qua obtaining bonafide resident certificate on forged Class-V mark-sheet. 3. Report was submitted by Tahsildar on 31/05/2005. 4. The report dated 31/05/2005 records following findings: ^^vukosnd dh vksj fHk.Mh _f"k ÁkFkfed fo|ky; prqosZnh uxj fHk.M dh d{kk 5 dh vad lwph dh QksVks Áfr rFkk gkbZ Ldwy lfVZfQdsV ijh{kk 1994 esa Lok/;k;h Nk= ds :i esa 'kkldh; mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky; uEcj 2 fHk.M ls lfEefyr gksus dh vad lwph dh QksVks Áfr ÁLrqr dh xbZA Áek.khdj.k Á/kku v/;kid fHk.Mh _f"k ÁkŒfoŒ ds Á/kku v/;kid }kjk gLrk{kfjr dh QksVks Áfr ÁLrqr dh xbZ ftlesa Á/kku v/;kid us ys[k fd;k fd vuwi dqekj iq= jkepUæ frokjh us bl fo|ky; ls laLFkkxr Nk= ds :i esa o"kZ 1985 esa jksy uEcj 274 ls d{kk dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gSA vukosnd dh vksj ls HkrhZ jftLVj dh QksVks Áfr Hkh is'k dh gSA rFkk o"kZ 1985 ds fHk.Mh _f"k ds ÁkŒfoŒ ds Nk=ksa mifLFkr iath ÁLrqr dh xbZA ftlesa vukosnd vuwi dqekj frokjh iq= jkepUæ frokjh dk mYys[k gSA Ádj.k es f'kdk;rdrkZ us tks vfHkys[k ÁLrqr fd;k gS mlesa fHk.Mh _f"k ÁkFkfed fo|ky; ds okf"kZd ijh{kkQy o"kZ 1985 dh lEiw.kZ Nk=ksa dh Áfr ÁLrqr ugha gSA vukosnd }kjk ÁLrqr Áfr esa ,d yxk;r 23 ds Nk=ksa ds uke gSa tcfd vukosnd vuwi dqekj frokjh }kjk ÁLrqr ijh{kkQy esa Øekad 30 jksy uEcj 274 ij vuwi dqekj frokjh dk uke gSA Áos'k iath dh tks Áfr vukosnd us tks ÁLrqr dh gS mlesa Øekad 46 ij vuwi dqekj frokjh dk uke gSA ;g Áos'k iath fdl o"kZ dh gSA ;g QksVks Áfr;ksa ds voyksdu ls Li"V ugha gksrk gS mifLFkr iath fHk.Mh _f"k ÁkŒfoŒ d{kk 5 dh Áfr vukosnd us ÁLrqr dh gS tks o"kZ 1985 dh gS bl QksVks dkih esa Øekad 46 ij vuwi dqekj frokjh uke ntZ gSA ewy fuoklh Áek.k i= ÁLrqr djus gsrq fu/kkZfjr fu;eksa esa ftlds vk/kkj ij ewy fuoklh Áek.k i= tkjh fd;k tkrk gSA ys[k fd;k x;k gS fd lacaf/kr vkosnd e/; Áns'k esa iSnk gqvk gks vFkok og mldk ikyd e/; Áns'k esa fujUrj 15 o"kksZ ls jg jgk gks vFkok dsUæh; 'kklu dk deZpkjh gks tks e/; Áns'k esa lsokjr gks vFkok og Lo;a vFkok mldk ikyd e/; Áns'k esa fiNYks 5 o"kksZ ls dksbZ mit lca/kh m|ksx vFkok O;olk; djrk gks mlds vykok mlus viuh f'k{kk e/; Áns'k esa fLFkfr fdlh laLFkk esa de ls de 3 o"kZ rd ÁkIr dh gks rFkk fuEukafdr lsokvksa mPprj ekŒfoŒ ijh{kk vkBoh dh ijh{kk dh d{kk] pkSFkh d{kk dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gksA Ádj.k dk ijh{k.k fd;s tkus ij ;g ik;k x;k gS fd vukosnd vuwi dqekj frokjh }kjk lE;d :i ls lwfpr fd;s tkus ds ckn Hkh rglhy fHk.M ds {ks= esa iSnk gksus tUe ls fuokl gksus dksbZ lEifRr vkfn gksus ds dksbZ Áek.k ÁLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gSA ek= nks vad lwph dh Áfr;ka ÁLrqr gSA ftuesa ,d gkbZ Ldwy dh Lok/;k;h Nk= ds :i esa ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dh gS tcfd nwljh ,d ÁkbZosV Ldwy fHk.Mh _f"k ÁkŒfoŒ fHk.M dh gS ftlds Á/kku v/;kid dk nks Ádkj dk Áek.khdj.k bl Ádj.k esa ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ,d Áek.khdj.k esa Á/kku v/;kid fHk.Mh _f"k ÁkŒfoŒ rFkk v/;{k turk f'k{kk Ápkj Álkj lfefr HknjkSyh fHk.M dh lhy yxkdj ys[k fd;k gS fd vuwi dqekj frokjh dh vad lwph QthZ gSA bl Áek.khdj.k esa dksbZ rkjh[k vafdr ugh gSA tcfd nwljk Áek.khdj.k vukosnd }kjk Á/kku v/;kid fHk.Mh _f"k ÁkŒfoŒ fHk.M ds Áek.khdj.k fnukad 10-04-2005 ls tkjh ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA** 5. These findings led the Collector Bhind, before whom lay the complaint, by order dated 10/04/2006 held: ^^mijksDr foospukuqlkj vkosnd }kjk ÁLrqr o"kZ 1985 dh v'kkldh; fHk.Mh _f"k ÁkŒfoŒ fHk.M }kjk tkjh 5oha dh vadlwph vfHkys[kksa ls Áekf.kr ugha gksrh gS rnuqlkj mlds vk/kkj ij tkjh ewy fuoklh Áek.k i= Hkh oS/k ugh jg tkrk gSA** 6. Challenge to this order vide Writ Petition No.2088/2006 being negatived by order passed on 05/10/2016, has led the appellant file this Appeal. 7. Learned Single Judge found following issues involved in the matter: (i) Whether the authorities were wrong in declaring the Domicile Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner as false and fabricated, which followed consequential action. (ii) whether the requirement of domicile as has been canvassed by the petitioner, is not mandatory in case of appointment of Panchayat Karmi. 8. As regard to issue No.(i), learned Single Judge observed on the basis of findings by the Collector that, petitioner did not fulfill the requirements of domicile certificate as mentioned in Part-II of Madhya Pradesh General Book Circular and though passed High School Examination from Madhya Pradesh being one of the enumerated requirements, was not the sole criteria for issuance of domicile certificate. And that, no other mark-sheet is filed by the petitioner establishing that prior to appearing for High School Certificate Examination in the year 1994, the petitioner had obtained his education from an educational institution in the State of Madhya Pradesh for a continuous period of three years. On these findings, learned Single Judge affirmed the order. 9. As the controversy had cropped up on the allegation that Class-V mark-sheet was the basis on which the domicile certificate was issued, and it being the contention of the petitioner that there was general promotion in the year 1985, by order dated 26/10/2016, the Appellant was given opportunity to establish the same. 10. That I.A. No.5368/2017 is filed for taking Notification dated 23/02/1985 issued by the Commissioner, Public Instructions, is filed to establish that no exam for Class-V was conducted. 10. That I.A. No.5368/2017 is filed for taking Notification dated 23/02/1985 issued by the Commissioner, Public Instructions, is filed to establish that no exam for Class-V was conducted. The letter is in following terms: ^^dk;kZy; lapkyd yksd f'k{k.k e/; Áns'k Øekad fo+|ky;@09@85@262 Hkksiky fnukad 23-02-1985 Áfr] leLr laHkkxh; f'k{k.k v/kh{kd] e/; Áns'k bl 'kSf{kf.kd o"kZ esa jkT; esa fofHkUu dkj.kksa ls i<+kbZ esa yxkrkj vM+pu vkrh jgh gS bldks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ,oa Nk=ksa ds O;kid fgr esa jkT; 'kklu us ;g fu.kZ; fd;k gS fd] jkT; ds Ldwyksa esa 8oha o 11oha d{kk dks NksM+dj ckdh lHkh d{kkvksa esa bl o"kZ okf"kZd ijh{kk ugha djkbZ tk;sxhA lHkh Nk=ksa dks lkekU; Áeks'ku fn;k tkosxkA ysfdu laHkkxh; cksMZ }kjk vkBoh o ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My }kjk 11oha lkoZtfud ijh{kk vius fu/kkZfjr dk;ZØe ds vuqlkj gh lEiUUk gksxh lHkh Ldwyksa dks ;g funZs'k fn;s tkosa fd 8 oha o 11oha d{kkvksa ds ikB~;Øe le; vuqlkj fuf'pr :i ls iwjs djsa vkSj blds fy, ;fn vko';d gks rks vU; d{kkvksa ds fy, Hkh viBuh; fd;k tkosA vU; d{kkvksa dh ijh{kk,sa ugha gksxhA viBuh; rnksijkar muds fu/kkZfjr ikB;Øe Hkh iwjs fd;s tkosaA gLrk{kj vk;qDr yksd f'k{k.k e/; Áns'kA** 11. Evident it is from the communication dated 23/02/1985 that the Tahsildar who was directed to conduct enquiry glossed over this vital fact. For this reason, he did not find any document establishing conducting of Class-V examination by the Board. 12. Now, let us have a look at the Domicile Certificate which is issued in printed form and is not disputed by the State as to its issuance by the Tahsildar. For this reason, he did not find any document establishing conducting of Class-V examination by the Board. 12. Now, let us have a look at the Domicile Certificate which is issued in printed form and is not disputed by the State as to its issuance by the Tahsildar. For ready reference, the certificate is reproduced: ^^e/; Áns'k ewy fuoklh Áek.k&Á= Áekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh vuwi dqekj frokjh iq= jkepUæ xzke fHk.M rglhy fHk.M ftyk fHk.M e/; Áns'k ds fuoklh gSa %& D;ksafd og & ;nqtku uxj 1- og e/; Áns'k es iSnk gqvk@gqbZ gSA 2- og ikyd o vfHkHkkod e/; Áns'k esa fujUrj de ls de 15 o"kksZ ls jg jgk gks vFkok dsUæh; 'kklu dk deZpkjh tks e/; Áns'k esa lsokjr gSA 3- og Lo;a vFkok mlds ikyd jkT; esa fiNys ikap o"kksZ ls dksbZ vpy lEifr] m|ksx vFkok dksbZ O;olk; djrs gSA blds vfrfjDr 1- mlus viuh f'k{kk e/; Áns'k esa fLFkfr fdlh laLFkk esa de ls de rhu o"kZ rd ÁkIr dh gSA 2- mlus e/; Áns'k esa fLFkr fdlh f'k{kk laLFkk esa fuEufyf[kr ijh{kkvksa esa de ls de ,d ijh{kk ikl dh gksaA ¼v½ mPprj ek/;fed ijh{kkA ¼c½ vkBoh d{kk dh ijh{kkA ¼l½ pkSFkh d{kk dh ijh{kkA Vhi %& tks va'k ykxw u gks dkV fn;k tkosA** 13. Evidently, after satisfying himself the Tahsildar had issued the certificate on the basis of birth, period for the parents are residing, Higher Secondary School Certificate and class-IV mark-sheet. There is no finding in the order passed by Collector that the petitioner is not born in Madhya Pradesh and that his parents have not lived for over 15 years. The only finding on which the certificate is held to be doubtful is petitioner's passing of Class-V. However, it is not Class-V certificate which is the basis, and rightly so, because in 1985 Class-V examination was not held. These factual aspects are glossed over by the Collector, who returns a perverse finding that the Domicile Certificate is issued on the basis of the forged Class-V certificate. Therefore, the same deserves to be and is hereby quashed. 14. Consequently, order passed in Writ Petition No 2088/2006 is also set aside. The consequential orders passed on the basis of the order dated 10/04/2006 are all set aside. The petitioner is restored to the status of Panchayat Karmi. 15. The Appeal is disposed of finally in above terms. 16. No costs.