Dhiraj Banke vs State Of M.P.

Sanjay Yadav, J

With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.

Petitioner calls in question the correctness of Order dated 24.2.2010; whereby the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad has set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi from Panchayat Maniyakhedi, Janpad Panchayat, Timarni on the ground of his being a relative of a sitting Panch.

Relevant facts briefly are that recourse to appointment of Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Maniakhedi, Timarni has taken in pursuance to order dated 4.6.2009 passed by Collector, Hoshangabad which culminated in order of appointment of the petitioner being more meritorious, on 8.9.2009. However, the resolution was set aside by the Collector on the finding that the petitioner''s mother was a Panch when the decision was taken for appointment of Panchayat Karmi, who tendered her resignation after said date on 27.6.2009. Collector ordered for fresh selection which was taken recourse. As the petitioner had 73.2 % in comparison to respondent No. 4 who had 72.6 %, the petitioner was again appointed in a fresh selection process by order dated 1.10.2009. On an exception being taken thereof by respondent No. 4 in appeal, the impugned order came to be passed.

The main reason which weighed with the Appellate Authority as is evident from the impugned order is that since the petitioner was ineligible in the first selection because of his mother being a Panch, the Authority concerned ought to have taken into consideration only those application which were received in first selection process and should not have resorted to fresh selection. This is evident from following findings:

"इस संबंध में यह स्पष्ट है कि उत्तरवादी क्र0 03 की माँ श्रीमती द्वारका बाई ग्राम पंचायत मनियाखेडी में पंच था एवं इस विवादित नियुक्ति के लिये प्रथमतः जो आवेदन पत्र बुळाये थे, उस समय वह पंच पद पर थी। आवेदन की अंतिम तिथि दिनांक 30.06.2009 को उनका त्यागपत्र स्वीकार नहीं किया गया था। फलस्वरूप उत्तरवादी क्रमांक 03 द्वारा प्रस्तुत आवेदन पत्र विधि अनुसार सही आवेदन पत्र नहीं है। ऐसी स्थिति में प्रथम चरण में ही उत्तरवादी क्रमांक 03 का आवेदन पत्र निरस्त कर मेरिट बनाकर श्शासन निर्देश्शों के अनुरूप कार्रवाई की जानी चाहिए थी, परन्तु यहां पर पंचायत द्वारा त्रुटि पूर्ण तरीके से उत्तरवादी श्री बांके का नाम सचिव हेतु प्रस्तुत किया। फलस्वरूप क्लेक्टर द्वारा कार्याळयीन ज्ञापद क्रमांक 6139/पंचा/जिपं0/2009-10 दिनांक 07.08.2009 से प्रस्ताव का अनुमोदन इस आधार पर नहीं किया कि उत्तरवादी क्रमांक 03 श्री धीरज बांके की माँ श्रीमती द्वारकाबाई ग्राम पंचायत मुनियाखेडी की पंच है। फलस्वरूप इस आदेश्श में यह निर्देश्श दिये कि श्शासन निर्देश्शों के अनुरूप पुनः ग्राम पंचायत मनियाखेडी में पंचयातकर्मी की नियुक्ति संबंधी कार्रवाई करें। जिळा कलेक्टर के इस आदेश्श की मंश्शा स्पष्ट है कि ग्राम पंचायत द्वारा जो आवेदन पत्र मंगाये गये थे उसमें उत्तरवादी क्रमांक 03 श्री धीरज बांके/श्री कांताप्रसाद द्वारा प्रस्तुत आवेदन पत्र विधिसंगत नहीं था क्योंकि उत्तरवादी क्र0 03 की माँ उक्त ग्राम पंचायत में पंच थी। अतः जिला कलेक्टर ने इस आवेदन को निरस्त कर नियुक्ति की कार्रवाई के निर्देश्श दिये हैं परन्तु यहां पर जनपद पंचायत द्वारा इन निर्देश्शों के विपरीत पुनः विज्ञप्ति जारी कर वहीं आवेदन पत्र प्राप्त कर प्रश्श्नाधीन नियुक्ति की कार्रवाई प्रारंभ की जबकि पंचायत को श्री धीरज बांके के आवेदन के अळावा जो आवेदन प्राप्त हुये थे उनको मेरिट के आधार पर विचार में लिया जाना था। इससे स्पष्ट है कि जनपद पंचायत द्वारा कलेक्टर के निर्देश्शों के विपरीत जाकर उत्तरवादी क्रमांक 03 का विवादित नियुक्ति आदेश्श जारी कराया गया है, जो कि विधिसंगत नहीं है। अपील आवेदन में तथ्य एवं अपीलार्थी के विद्वान अभिभाषक द्वारा प्रस्तुत यह तर्क कि प्रश्श्नाधीन नियुक्ति अनैतिक प्रभाव का सूचक है। इस संभावना को भी उक्त आळोक में खारिज नहीं किया जा सकता है।"

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Appellate Authority misread the order by Collector who in clear terms directed for a fresh selection process. It is further urged that even if it is to be accepted for argument sake that the petitioner''s mother was a Panch then also the petitioner cannot be deprived of the appointment as Panchayat Karmi. It is urged that second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 69 of Adhiniyam 1993 prohibits appointment of Panchayat Secretary and not Panchayat Karmi. Petitioner relies on the decision in Prahalad Singh Patel v. State of M.P. and others [2000 (1) MPHT 89].

Second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 69 of Adhiniyam added by amendment Act No. 2 of 1997 was in the following terms:

"Provided further that a person shall not hold charge of a Secretary of Gram Panchayat, if such a person happens to be relative of any office bearer of the concerned Gram Panchayat."

It has been held in Prahlad Singh Patel (supra) that:

"12. Petitioners claim that they were earlier appointed as Panchayat Karmis by their respective Gram Panchayats and, later on, were appointed as its Secretaries. Second proviso to Section 69 (1) of the Act being mandatory in character; petitioners cannot be allowed to hold charge of the Secretaries. Still on my conclusion that Panchayat Karmis and Panchayat Secretaries are not synonymous with each other, as also there is no legislative or other impediment in continuance of such persons as Panchayat Karmis appointed in accordance with law, they may not be allowed to hold the charge of the Secretaries, but they cannot be removed from the office of Panchayat Karmi except as a measure of punishment as provided under Clause 7 of the Panchayat Karmi Yojna or any other ground permissible under the law. It is made clear that I have not gone into the question of validity of the appointment of petitioners as Panchayat Karmi.

Result of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioners cannot be allowed to hold charge of the Panchayat Secretary and as such the impugned decision of the respondents communicating to the petitioners that they are disqualified to perform the function of the Panchayat Secretary cannot be interfered with. However, petitioners cannot be prohibited from functioning as Panchayat Karmis only on the ground that they are relative of office bearer of Gram Panchayat. This may not be construed to mean that respondents cannot go into the question of validity of the appointment of petitioners as Panchayat Karmis. However, respondents cannot hold the petitioners appointment as Panchayat Karmi illegal only on the ground that they are relative of office bearer of Gram Panchayat.

Thus, there exist no statutory bar for appointment of Panchayat Karmi even if any of his relatives are office bearer of concerned Panchayat, there is no prohibition for his appointment as Panchayat Karmi.

The impugned order when is adjudged on the anvil of the decision in Prahlad Singh Patel (supra) cannot be given the stamp of approval.

Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. Interim order made absolute. Petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.