Mukesh Rawat vs State of M.P. & Ors.

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

Challenge is to an order dated 09.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.2224/2014 whereby the challenge to order dated 21.03.2014 has been

negatived.

Order dated 21.03.2014 where-against the petition was directed was passed by the Additional Collector Morena in an appeal preferred by

Respondent No.5 against the appointment of present Appellant as Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The appeal was allowed on the ground that the

Appellant had not passed class 8th examination and had supplementary; therefore, his passing of class X and class XII was found to be doubtful.

The post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak came into existence with the advent of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and in execution

thereof by the State by constituting Madhya Pradesh Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad and the scheme framed by the Parishad for appointment of

Gram Rojgar Sahayak stipulating intera alia that the appointment of Gram Rojgar Shayak will be contractual and the incumbent having the

qualification as stipulated in clause 4 (a) and 4 (b) of the scheme viz :

VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED

Clause 4 (8) to 4 (11) lays down the procedure to be adhered to for selection. Whereas, clause 4 (12) provides for committee comprising of

Additional Programme Coordinator, /CEO, Jilla Panchayat as its president and the nominee of Collector, Project Officer, MNREGA and CEO of

respective Janpad Panchayat as its members. Clause 17 of the scheme mandates:

VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED

In the present case the controversy revolves round the interpretation of Clause 17.

That applications were invited by Gram Panchayat Digwar, through its CEO vide advertisement issued in the year 2017. That select list was

prepared on 11.01.2013 wherein one Rajesh Rawat was shown selected whereas, the present Appellant was at Serial No.1 of the waiting list and

respondent No.5 was placed second in the select list, said Rajesh Rawat declined the offer of appointment vide his letter dated 23.10.2013.

Consequently, the Appellant who was at Serial No.1 of the waiting list was offered the appointment by order dated 29.08.2013. The appointment

was challenged by the respondent No.5 in Appeal before the Additional Collector, Morena contending inter alia that the present Appellant has not

passed class 8th examination and therefore cannot be said to have passed class X and class XII examination, and the mark-sheets produced were

not genuine as the name of mother which find mention in class X and class XII mark-sheet is shown that of ""Malti"" whereas in the voter list

petitioner''s mother name is shown as ""Narmada"". The challenge found favour with the Appellate Authority, who by order dated 21.03.2014

quashed the appointment on the following findings :

VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED

This order came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 2224/2014 on the ground that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector

to entertain the appeal which could only be entertained by Collector who is designated District Programme Coordinator. The challenge was also

on the ground that the Additional Collector returned an erroneous finding qua class X and XII mark-sheet.

Learned Single Judge formulated three issues:

(i) Whether Additional Collector was a competent Authority to pass the impugned order or not.

(ii) Whether appointment of the petitioner could have been cancelled without following the procedure as provided in Clause 16; and

(iii) Whether there was sufficient material to doubt about class 8th qualification of the petitioner.

As to issue number (i), learned Single Judge referring to clarification dated 15/10/2014 qua Clause 17 of the Scheme observed that being not

retrospective in its operation upheld the jurisdiction and competency of the Additional Collector in entertaining the Appeal. As regard to second

issue the learned Single Judge found it to be sans merit as the appointment was challenged in Appeal. Regarding issue number (iii), learned Single

Judge upheld the finding arrived at by the Appellate Authority as to authenticity of class X and XII mark-sheet; as the petitioner had not produced

class VIII mark-sheet before the Appellate Authority and even in the petition. Consequently, vide impugned order dismissed the petition.

In present Appeal, though many a grounds are raised; however, the submissions are confined to the Competency of the Additional Collector to

act as an Appellate Authority.

Placing reliance on Section 2 (e) and 14 (1) of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and Clause 17 of the Scheme (Annexure P-2)

and the clarification thereof vide circular dated 15.10.2014, it is urged that since the legislature designated Collector of a District to be a District

Prgramme Coordinator, it is beyond the competence of the Collector to have delegated the powers to Additional Collector, in absence of any

notification by the State Govt. which alone is empowered to designate any other district level officer of appropriate rank to act as the District

Programme Coordinator, besides the Chief Executive Officer, Jilla Panchayat and the Collector.

Respondents on their turn have relied upon the stipulations contained under Section 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 to

substantiate the contentions that it being within the competence of the Collector to have delegated its duties which were designated to be

discharged by him under Section 14 (2), 14 (3) & 14 (4) of the Act, 2005. It is contended that since Collector, Morena in purported exercise of

his powers conferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 of the Code, 1959 had by order dated 22.01.2013 delegated his duties to the

Additional Collector, the Additional Collector was well within his jurisdiction to have entertained the Appeal and decide.

Considered rival submissions.

The Act, viz the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 was brought in vogue to provide for the enhancement of livelihood security

of the household in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to

every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2

(e) defines District Programme Coordinator to mean ""an officer of the State Government designated as such under Sub- Section (1) of Section 14

for implementation of the Scheme in a district"". The Act, however, does not define the expression ""Collector""; therefore, it has to be considered

with reference to definition in General Clauses Act 1897, wherein under Section 3 (11) it is defined as:

(11) ""Collector"" shall mean, in a Presidencytown, the Collector of Calcutta, Madras or Bombay, as the case may be, and elsewhere the chief

officer-in-charge of the revenueadministration of a district;

That Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was enacted with an object to consolidate and amend the law relating to land revenue, the

powers of Revenue Officers, rights and liabilities of holders of land from the State Government, agricultural tenures and other matters relating to

land and the liabilities incidental thereto in Madhya Pradesh and it received the assent of President on 15.09.1959, first published in the Madhya

Pradesh Gazette extraordinary 21.09.1959, Section 11 provides for hierarchy of Revenue Officers, and the Collector which includes Additional

Collectors is one such Officer.

That Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the code empowers the State Govt. to appoint one or more Additional Collector in a district. That Sub-

Section (2) and Sub-Section (3) of Section 17 stipulates :

(2) An Additional Collector shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a Collector by or under this Code or

by or under any other enactment for the time being in force, in such cases or class of cases as the State Government may, by a general order,

notify or as the Collector of the district may, subject to any general or special restrictions imposed by the State Government, by an order in writing

direct.

(3) This Code and every other enactment for the time being in force and any rule made under this Code or any such other enactment shall, except

where expressly directed otherwise, apply to the Additional Collector, when exercising any powers or discharging any duties under sub-section

(2), as if he were the Collector of the district.

In the case at hand, there is no cavil that the Additional Collector is appointed by the State Govt. in exercise of its power conferred under Sub-

Section (1) of Section 17. The controversy is whether the Collector is justified in delegating the duties conferred under Section 14(2), 14(3) and

14 (4) of the Act 2005. And the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to entertain, hear and decide the Appeal.

Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 of the Code 1959, clearly stipulates that an Additional Collector shall exercise such powers and discharge such

duties conferred and imposed on a collector by or order the Code 1959 or as the Collector of the district may, subject to any general or special

restrictions imposed by the State government by an order in writing direct. In the case at hand no order in writing by the State Govt. restricting the

powers of Collector to delegate his powers and duties to the Additional Collector has been commended at. Though it is contended on behalf of the

Appellant that the order dated 15.10.2014 be construed as a restraint on the exercise of power by the Collector under Section 17 (2) of the code

1959; however, the said order as apparent therefrom is not passed by the State Government as would qualify the stipulations contained under

Section 17 (2) of the Code.

A Division Bench of this Court in Shantilal Jain V. M.L.Patil Addl. Commissioner Gwalior DN., Gwalior 1988 MPLJ 172 held :

We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the Additional Collector, exercising lawfully the powers of the Collector and having disposed of

the appeal exercising his Jurisdiction lawfully, the grievance is meritless. Indeed, Section 17 the General Clauses Act itself envisages that any

functionary under any enactment may be mentioned by the official title and under ""any"" enacted law those functions may be exercised not by an

officer so described but also by one who is authorised thereunder to exercise those functions. In virtue of his entitlement under Sub-Sections (2) &

(3) of Section 17 of the Code, the Additional Collector is evidently duly authorised to hear appeal transferred to him by the Collector. The Scheme

being a State ""enactment"", the provisions afore-extracted fully cover the field and reliance by petitioner''s counsel on the provisions of the Essential

Commodities Act would not clearly avail the petitioner.

Counsel has relied on the decision in Budhoolal, 1964 M.P.L.J. 887=1964 JLJ 580, but we are not at all convinced that the view we have

taken militates against that taken in the decision cited for the reason that the provisions we have considered never came up for the consideration of

their Lordships in that case. Who is a ""Collector"" under M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 was the question that was considered in that case and it was

held that he was a persona designata under that Act which did not define the said term. There was no occasion for this Court to refer to the

provisions of M.P. General Clauses Act or M.P. Land Revenue Code.

In the case at hand evidently Sub-Sections (2),(3) & (4) of Section 14 of the Act, 2005 stipulate that :

14.(2) The District Programme Coordinator shall be responsible for the implementation of the Scheme in the district in accordance with the

provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.

(3) The functions of the District Programme Coordinator shall be-

(a) to assist the district Panchayat in discharging its functions under this Act and any scheme made thereunder;

(b) to consolidate the plans prepared by the Blocks and project proposals received from other implementing agencies for inclusion in the shelf of

projects to be approved by the Panchayat at district level;

(c) to accord necessary sanction and administrative clearance, wherever necessary;

(d) to coordinate with the Programme Officers functioning within his jurisdiction and the implementing agencies to ensure that the applicants are

provided employment as per their entitlements under this Act;

(e) to review, monitor and supervise the performance of the Programme Officers;

(f) to conduct periodic inspection of the works in progress; and

(g) to redress the grievances of the applicants.

(4) The State Government shall delegate such administrative and financial powers to the District Programme Coordinator as may be required to

enable him to carry out his functions under this Act.

The provisions talks about the discharge of function as District Programme Coordinator by the Collector.

Thus, evident it is from the provisions contained under Sub-Section 2 & Sub-Section 3 of Section 14 that certain duties are conferred on

District Programme Coordinator which can be either the Chief Executive Officer of the district or any other district level officer of appropriate rank

as State Government may decide. Sub-Section 2 of Section 17 of Code of 1959 empowers the Collector to delegate such duties conferred on him

under Code of 1959 or under any Act. The Act of 2005, though, a special Act but is an Act thus empowers Collector to delegate the duties

conferred on him on Additional Collector in exercise of the powers under Sub-Section 2 of Section 17 of Code 1959. Clause 17 and the

explanation thereof the scheme has been relied upon on behalf of the appellant to substantiate the contentions that since the scheme makes a

mention about District Programme Officer who happens to be a Collector who alone can act as an Appellate Authority. Clause 17 of the Scheme

and the explanation thereof on 15.10.2014, which are as under :

VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED

When tested on the anvil of the stipulations contained under Sub-Section 14 (1) of the Act 2005 read with Sub-Section 2 of Section 17 of the

Code, 1959 does not substantiate the submissions made on behalf of Appellant that the Collector alone who can exercise the power as an

Appellate Authority and that Collector has no Authority to delegate such powers on Additional Collector.

In view whereof, we are not inclined to cause any indulgence with the order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2224/2014

and we are further upheld the competency of Additional Collector delegated with the duties of Collector/District Programme Coordinator to

discharge the function as an Appellate Authority.

Consequently, Appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no costs.