Chandar Singh Maravi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard. Petitioner in pursuance to the proceedings for appointment of Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Khohari Janpad Panchayat Nainpur, District Mandla, was selected and appointed as Panchayat Karmi by majority of vote vide resolution dated 23.2.2006 and order dated 26.2.2006. Thus, the petitioner was preferred against respondent No. 6 who had 61.40% marks and the petitioner 41.6%.

Appointment of the petitioner which was vide resolution dated 23.2.2006 was questioned before the Additional Collector, Mandla who by his order dated 9.6.2009 dismissed the Appeal upholding the resolution in question.

Aggrieved, respondent No. 6 preferred a Revision before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, wherein, despite of repeated opportunity given to the petitioner between 21.11.2012 to 14.8.2013 which led the Revisional Authority to hear the revision ex-parte and decide the same by impugned order.

The Revisional Authority on a finding that at relevant time the circular which was in vogue was of 27.1.2006 providing for selection of Panchayat Karmi on merit and the same having not been adhered to by the Gram Panchayat quashed the entire selection process. Consequently, the appointment of petitioner has been set aside with a direction to the Competent Authority to initiate fresh proceedings.

The reasons whereon the selection of petitioner having been held to be vitiated that the selection ought to have been on merit and not by majority of vote cannot be interfered with as the petitioner fails to commend at any Rule justifying selection by majority of vote.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others: Writ Appeal No. 601/2009 while dwelling upon the issue, similar to the present, was pleased to observe:-

It is contended on behalf of the appellant that there was only one post on which the appointment was to be made and as per the scheme which was in vogue on 27.1.06, the appointment was to be made only on the basis of the majority. It is also contended by him that preparation of merit list on the basis of the merit is not permissible. It is also contended that a new scheme has been brought into force which relates to the appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi and in the new scheme which was enforced after the selection though stipulation of appointment shall be made on the basis of merit. On this basis, it is submitted that the consideration of merit on the date of selection was not available, therefore, the authorities were not justified in refusing the claim of the present appellant so is the learned Single Judge.

In this reference, it is to be seen that while considering the appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi, if there is one post and various candidates have applied against the same, then one has to consider whether a fair procedure has been adopted by the panel while selecting the solitary post of Panchayat Karmi. In this reference, as we see, a merit list was prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the High School examination. There is no dispute about the same that the minimum qualification is the High School and the merit list was prepared by the Panchayat on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained by the three candidates. Under the circumstances, we do not find fault that the Panchayat has not acted reasonably and has given appointment arbitrarily.

In view of above, pronouncement, the reasons assigned by the Revisional Authority in setting aside the appointment of the petitioner cannot be faulted with, as would warrant any interference.

The petitioner however also questions the procedure adhered to by respondent No. 6 in assailing the appointment of the petitioner. Relying on the provisions of Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, it is urged that against a resolution, an appeal will not lie before the Additional Collector. It is urged, that it is the Sub-Divisional Officer who is the prescribed authority u/s 85(1) of 1993 Adhiniyam to have dwelt upon the resolution in question, in the manner prescribed. The petitioner, as is borne out from record did not raised this point before the Additional Collector. Therefore, the petitioner is not permitted to raise it for the first time in a writ petition.

In view whereof, since the appointment of the petitioner was not on merit but by majority ignoring the merit of other contenders, no interference is caused. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.