Prakash Prajapati vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sheel Nagu, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the present petition assails Annexure P-1 by which the candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III has been cancelled for certain reasons mentioned therein. Undoubtedly, the recruitment process in which the candidature of the petitioners has been rejected was undertaken under the M.P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment & Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to the Rules of 2005).

The above said Rule of 2005 provide in Rule 11 that against any order passed under the Rules of 2005, an appeal would lie in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Act 1993 for brevity). By invoking Section 91 and Section 95 of the Act of 1993, the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995 (Rules of 1995 for brevity) have been framed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the Rules of 1995 contends that no appeal is available to the petitioner against the impugned action of the respondents, in as much as, the remedy of appeal provided under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1995 can be availed only against any "order" passed by authorities such as S.D.O., Collector, Commissioner or by the Panchayat. It is, thus, contended that no appeal lies against the recruitment proceedings as is the case herein.

The above said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct on a prima facie perusal of the provision of Rule 3 of Rules of 1995 wherein an appeal would lie only when an order is passed by any of the authorities mentioned in the said rule or by the Panchayat. Since no order has been passed against the petitioner by any of the authorities mentioned in Rule 3 or by the Panchayat, the remedy of appeal is admittedly not available to the petitioner.

The other remedy under the Rules of 1995 is of Revision under Rule 5 which reads thus:-

Revision.-(1) (a) The State Government, the Commissioner, the Director of Panchayat, the Collector may on its/his own motion or on the application by any party, at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the authority subordinate to it/him call for and examine the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, such authority and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he may think fit:

Provided that it/he shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them for being heard:

Provided further that no application for revision shall be entertained against an order appealable under the Act.

(b) An application for revision by any party shall only be entertained if it is on the point of law and not on facts

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1),-

(i) Where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the State Government under sub-rule (1) no action shall be taken by other Officer mentioned in the said sub-rule in respect thereof, and

(ii) Where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the Officer mentioned in sub-rule (1), the State Government may either refrain from taking any action under this rule in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceeding by such officer or may withdraw such proceeding and pass such order as it may deem fit.

From the perusal of Rule 3, it is clear that the State Government, the Commissioner, the Director of Panchayat and the Collector, on their own motion or on an application by the aggrieved person can test the legality, propriety and validity of an order or proceedings passed by any authority subordinate to the State Government, Commissioner, Directorate or the Collector.

In the present case, the proceedings under challenge (Annexure P-1) are conducted by the District Education Centre functioning under the Department of School Education. The District Eduction Centre which appears to be the recruiting agency is an authority subordinate to the Collector or Commissioner or at least the State Government and, therefore, the petitioner can very well avail the remedy of revision by raising his grievances under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995.

In view of above, this court refrains itself from dwelling into the matter on merits to allow the petitioner to avail the remedy of Revision u/r 5 of the Rules of 1995.

Liberty is extended to the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision under the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995, which if availed within 60 (sixty) days from today the obstacle of limitation shall not come in way of the petitioner.

With the above said liberty, the instant petition stands dismissed sans cost.