Dhruv Prasad Lodhi vs State of M.P. and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—Challenging the order-dated 18.4.2011 - Annexure P/1 passed by the Collector, District Panna in the matter of appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Kariya, Tehsil Pawai, District Panna, this writ petition has been filed. On the basis of the notification issued both petitioner and respondent No. 6 submitted their candidature for appointment to the post in question. Based on the merit of respondent No. 6 as he had obtained 87.33% marks in the qualifying examination as compared to 86.22% marks obtained by the petitioner, respondent No. 6 was appointed. Petitioner challenged this appointment before the Collector and the Collector having rejected the same, petitioner is before this Court.

Shri P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting my attention to the Scheme for appointment, stated that one of the conditions stipulated in the Scheme is that the candidate should be a local resident of the Gram Panchayat, for which the appointment is made. Emphasizing that respondent No. 6 is not a local resident of Gram Panchayat Kariya, Tehsil Pawai, District Panna; he is a resident of Village Mohendra, Tehsil Pawai, District Panna and, therefore, not entitled to appointment, challenge is made to the finding recorded by the Collector. Taking me through the documents available on record, particularly Annexure P/3, the application submitted by respondent No. 6 and the address indicated therein, his Village and Post Mohendra, particularly the identity card of the Election Commission, Shri Mishra emphasized that this identity card is issued after the process of selection on 12.1.2011 and, therefore, based on these documents the finding recorded by the Collector is unsustainable. It is stated that the Collector ignoring the address given by respondent No. 6 in his application - Annexure P/3 has recorded a perverse finding, which is unsustainable.

That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the merit list prepared by the Gram Sabha as contained in Annexure P/6, and argued that in the said list name of respondent No. 6 was not available and even though the Gram Sabha has not approved his candidature nor recommended his case for appointment on merit, he has been appointed illegally by the Project Officer, which is unsustainable. In view of the above, the order passed by the Collector cannot be upheld, Shri P.K. Mishra prays for interference into the matter.

Shri Chandrapal Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, and Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5, emphasized that as per the policy for appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak, as contained in Annexure R/1 dated 10.11.2009, it is clearly stipulated that residence of a candidate shall be determined based on the voter list of the particular area for which the selection has to be made. Inviting my attention to the voter list of the area for the year 2005, wherein name of respondent No. 6 appears at Serial No. 808 as a resident of the village in question i.e.... Gram Panchayat Kariya, learned counsel for the respondents argue that as respondent No. 6 is a resident of the local area, he has been appointed as per his merit and as the Gram Sabha deliberately did not recommend his case inspite of his merit, the Project Officer and the competent authority has interfered into the matter. Accordingly, in doing so, it is stated that no error has been committed and the Collector after due appreciation of the entire material has arrived at a conclusion with regard to the residence of respondent No. 6, which does not call for any interference.

Shri Chandrapal Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 6, points out that the Collector has based his finding on the voter list available at page 8 of his return; the certificate of residence issued by the Tehsildar available at page 9, of the return; and, the ration card available at page 14, wherein respondent No. 6 is shown to be of the local village. That apart, certain revenue records with regard to possession of immoveable property in the same village by respondent No. 6''s father were also produced, which have been taken note of and a decision taken.

Accordingly, respondents contend that the order passed by the Collector is a reasonable order and the same does not call for any interference.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. I have also taken note of the reasons indicated by the Collector, based on which the finding is recorded by the Collector. Admittedly, as far as merit of the candidates is concerned, respondent No. 6 is more meritorious than the petitioner and was entitled for appointment as per his merit.

The only question warranting consideration is as to whether respondent No. 6 is a local resident or not?

If the order passed by the Collector is taken note of, it would be seen that while hearing the appeal, the Collector summoned the entire original records of selection from the office of competent authority and on scanning of these records, he found that in the voter list of the Lok Sabha and Assembly Elections for the year 2009 i.e..... before the selection, respondent No. 6''s name appears at Serial No. 808. It was also found that his name is appearing in the Voter List of Vidhan Sabha Area No. 48, Pawai Centre, Kariya. It was also indicated that in the ration card issued his name is available and his residence is shown to be village Kariya. It was also taken note of by the Collector that the Tehsildar, Pawai has issued a certificate of residence in the year 2000, wherein respondent No. 6 is shown to be a resident of Gram Panchayat Kariya. That apart, father of respondent No. 6 is shown to be possessing 0.32 Hectares of land in village Kariya. Based on these records a finding is recorded by the Collector that respondent No. 6 is a resident of the local area and his appointment has been approved.

In doing so, I am of the considered view that the Collector has not committed any error warranting interference into the matter exercising limited jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution. The question as to whether a particular person is a resident of a particular village is a question of fact and has to be appreciated on the basis of the documents and material that are available on record. The Collector has meticulously analysed the documents produced by respondent No. 6, as indicated hereinabove, and on a scrutiny of the documents has recorded a finding that he is a local resident of the village and has been correctly appointed, as he is more meritorious.

In doing so, the Collector has appreciated the documents correctly and merely because in certain other documents relied upon by Shri P.K. Mishra, residence of respondent No. 6 is shown to be different, it cannot be said that the finding of the Collector is perverse or unsustainable. The overwhelming documents available on record do indicate that respondent No. 6 is a resident of the local village and based on these documents if the Collector has recorded a reasonable finding, I see no reason to interfere into the same.

Even though Shri P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, tried to emphasize that the Gram Sabha has not recommended the case of respondent No. 6, if an error is committed by the Gram Sabha deliberately to deprive a more meritorious candidate of his right and this error is corrected by the Higher Authorities, it is only to do justice to a meritorious candidate and on such consideration interference into the matter cannot be made. Accordingly, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner, this petition stands dismissed.