Jairam Prasad & Ors. vs Maniram & Anr.

The review petitioner / appellant in W.A.No.806/2014, is praying for recalling of the order dated 18.11.2014, passed in W.A.No.806 of 2014, on the ground that the respondent No.6 - Om Prakash Dangi, suppressed the factum of his ineligibility for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi / Secretary, as per Panchayat Karmi Scheme, 1995.

This case has a chequered history. The eligibility criteria for appointment of Panchayat Karmi is that he should have High School Certificate or 10 th passed under 10 + 2 system and his minimum age should be 18 years.

The appointment of Panchayat Karmi was governed by policy framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 70 read with sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, circulated Panchayat and Rural Development Department Circular No.F/2/12/22/P-1/95, dated 12.9.1995. Sub-clause 3.1 of clause 3.2 of the policy stipulated that the minimum requisite qualification of appointment as Panchayat Karmi should be Higher School Certificate or 10th passed under 10 + 2 system and his minimum age should be 18 years. Sub-clause 3.3 of ''Panchayat Karmi (Gram Panchayat Sachiv (Sect.) Scheme'', authorised the concerned Gram Panchayat to add further criteria as per resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Clause 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of Panchayat Karmi Scheme reads as under :-

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

In the case in hand, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 1.8.2007 to fill-up the post of Panchayat Karmi / Secretary, Gram Panchayat - Kachnaria, Tehsil Biora, applications were invited; in response of number of candidates applied for appointment. As per application form prescribed by the Gram Panchayat - Kachnaria, on 1.1.2007, the minimum age of the candidate should be 18 years. In the last column of the form, the candidate has to verify that all information as provided in the form should be true and correct. In case, if it is found that, information furnished by the candidate is incorrect then, his application is liable to be rejected.

All the candidates have applied in the format prescribed by the Gram Panchayat. Annexure P/6 is format submitted by the respondent No.6 - Om Prakash Dangi. As per Column No.3 of the said format, his date of birth is 10.1.1989 and on 1.1.2007, he is 17 years 9 days only, in Column No.7, he has wrongly stated that on 1.1.2007, he has completed 18 years. Photo copy of the form filled up by the respondent No.6 vide Annexure P/6 reads as under :- (See page 5).......

Large number of applications were received and a merit list was prepared. The review petitioner has received 245 marks out of 500. The respondent No.5 Yogesh Paliwal, received 230 marks and the respondent No.6 - Om Prakash Dangi, received 380 marks out of

By Resolution dated 10.8.2007, Gram Panchayat appointed the respondent No.5 - Yogesh Paliwal as Panchayat Karmi. The review petitioner had filed W.P.No.1040/2008 (S), challenging the appointment of the respondent No.5. The learned writ court on 4.10.2013 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of appointment of respondent No.5 and issued the directions for issuance of appointment order in favour of the review petitioner being the most meritorious eligible candidate. On 28.10.2013, the Division Bench in W.A.No.961/2013, affirmed the order passed by the learned writ court. As a result of which the review petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi

- Secretary vide order dated 18.11.2013, issued by the Chief Executive Officer Jilla Panchayat, Rajgarh (Biora).

The respondent No.6 filed a Review Petition No.682/2013, posting himself as most meritorious candidate. His review petition was allowed vide order dated 10.10.2014, directing the respondent No.4 - Gram Panchayat to issue appointment order in favour of the respondent No.6. The review petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ Appeal No.806/2014. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal on 18.11.2014. Para 10, 11 and 12 of the order dated 18.11.2014 is relevant which reads as under :-

"10. On due consideration of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and the material available on record, so also the fact that the appointment of the appellant was made on the basis of the majority of votes, contrary to the procedure prescribed by the State Government and as per the merit list prepared by the Gram Panchayat, review petitioner (Om Prakash Dangi) received 380 marks out of 500 marks, present appellant (Mohanlal Chandravanshi) received 245 marks out of 500 marks and respondent No.5 (Yogesh Paliwal) received 230 marks out of 500 marks, it was Om Prakash Dangi, who was the review petitioner in Review Petition No.682/2013, was the most meritorious candidate.

The learned review Court allowed the review application because review petitioner (Om Prakash Dangi) was the most meritorious candidate amongst the ppellant (Mohanlal Chandravanshi) and respondent No.5 (Om Prakash Dangi).

Considering the aforesaid, the Writ Appeal No.806/2014 has no merit and is accordingly dismissed."

The review petitioner challenged the said order dated 18.1.2014 by filing SLP (C) No6663 / 2015, before the Apex Court. The Apex court on 17.4.2015, permitted the review petitioner to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to file an appropriate application before the High Court. Order dated 17.4.2015 passed by the Apex Court reads as under :-

"After arguing for some time, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this special leave petition with liberty to file an appropriate petition before the court. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty."

The review petitioner after withdrawal of SLP, the present review petition has been filed on the ground that the date of birth of respondent No.6 is 10.1.1989 and while submitting the application form on 3.8.2007, he has mentioned his age as on 1.1.2007, 18 years, which was palpably false and contrary to the record. This material aspect of the matter skipped kind consideration of this court while adjudicating W.A.No.806 of 2014, filed by the review petitioner.

Learned Senior counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.6 was disqualified from being appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi / Secretary as he has not filled 18 years of age as on 1.1.2007, as required in the application form submitted by him on 3.8.2007. He has also sworn in the form the fact that in the event, on his furnishing a wrong information in the application, his application is liable to be rejected along with his candidature. No opportunity was granted to the petitioner in the review petition filed by the respondent No.6. Had the review petitioner has granted an opportunity to file the reply to the review application filed by the respondent No.6, the petitioner would have certainly brought this material fact to the notice of the learned Single Judge. It is also submitted that the respondent No.6 deliberately did not prefer any application before any authority for seven good years alleging appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi as has been done by the petitioner who has availed all the alternative remedies available to him right from day one till Apex Court and prayed that the impugned order be recalled and the respondent No.4 - Gram Panchayat be directed to appoint the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi.

In contrary, Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 - Om Prakash Dangi, has submitted that Gram Panchayat, Kachnaria, invited application form for filling up the post of Panchayat Secretary (Panchayat Karmi) and applications were submitted from 23.7.2007 to 6.8.2007. On 3.8.2007, the respondent No.6 submitted his application and filled up the required information including the date of birth (10.1.1989). As per Panchayat Karmi, Scheme, dated 12.9.1995, the eligibility for the post of Panchayat Karmi is that he should be 18 years of age. On 3.8.2007, ie., at the time of submission of application form, he had completed 18 years and 6 months and, therefore, he was clearly eligible and his form was rightly accepted and the date mentioned in the form, ie., 1.1.2007, is not relevant with purpose of determination of age for eligibility and submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and prays for rejection of the application.

He submitted that the date of advertisement is 3.8.2007, which ought to have been the date taken in the consideration for the purpose of determination of the age for recruitment; whereas a cutoff date is 6.8.2007, which is being taken for the purpose of selection cannot be given the stamp of approval.

In the present case, admittedly, while issuing the appointment for the advertisement on the post of Panchayak Karmi, the Gram Panchayat added one more eligibility criteria for appointment of Panchayat Karmi as on 1.1.2007, the candidate should be 18 years of age. Clause 3.3 of the Panchayat Karmi Scheme, 1995, gives power to the Gram Panchayat to add any other eligibility criteria over and over above the criteria prescribed in Panchayat Karmi Scheme, 1995.

Admittedly, on 1.1.2007, the respondent No.6 has not completed 18 years of age as required in the application form submitted by him on 3.8.2007. He also sworn to the fact that in the event of his furnishing wrong information in the application, his application should be liable to be rejected along with his candidature.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the respondent No.6 was disqualified for being appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi as he has not completed 18 years of age as on 1.1.2007 as required in the application form and as per Clause 12 of the verification (sworn certificate/affidavit), he has given wrong information in Column 7 of the application that as on 1.1.2007, he has completed 18 years of age and, therefore, his appointment was contrary to the criteria prescribed by the Gram Panchayat.

In review petition, which was filed by the respondent No.6, the present review petitioner has not been granted an opportunity to file reply and, therefore, this material fact could not pointed out earlier to the learned review court that review petition decided against the order passed in W.P.No.1040 of 2008(s) and the review petitioner being the most meritorious eligible candidate available for the aforesaid post as he has scored 245 marks out of 500, we recalled the order dated 18.11.2014 passed in W.A.No.806/2014 by holding that the respondent No.6 - Om Prakash Dangi was ineligible for the appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi as he was 17 years of age on 1.1.2007.

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we allow the review application by recalling the order dated 18.11.2014, passed in W.A.No.806 of 2014 and upheld the appointment of Review petitioner.

No costs.