Pramod Kaurav vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—Respondent No. 5 has been seeking time since 28.2.2011, but till date reply is not filed. Considering the short question involved in the matter and taking note of the fact that the order impugned dated 5.9.2008-Annexure P/6, is passed by the Minister concerned without hearing the petitioner and as the order adversely affects the petitioner, the same is unsustainable.

Gram Panchayat in question issued an advertisement for appointment of Panchayat Karmi. In all 31 applications were received and based on the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in the meeting held on 4.8.2007, respondent No. 5 Rameshwar Kaurav was appointed as Panchayat Karmi based on the majority decision and accordingly order of appointment-Annexure P/1 was issued on 6.8.2007. As the said appointment of respondent No. 5 was on majority and various contestants for the post, including the petitioner, had grievances in the matter, appeals were filed by most of the persons before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Panchayat Karmi. The SDO (Revenue), Gadarwara heard all concerned and by a detailed order-dated 31.1.2008-Annexure P/2 found various infirmities in the selection process. Amongst others, the following illegalities were noted. It was found that one Smt. Baiji Mukadam is Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and Rameshwar Kaurav-respondent No. 5, who was appointed, is her grandson and, therefore, on this count it was held that his appointment is illegal. It was also found that an uncle of respondent No. 5 was an elected office bearer of the Gram Panchayat. It was also found by the SDO (Revenue) that by recommending for appointment on majority ignoring the merit, various other candidates more meritorious than respondent No. 5 were ignored for appointment and taking note of all these factors, the appointment was cancelled.

Respondent No. 5 Rameshwar Kaurav challenged this order passed by the SDO (Revenue) by approaching this Court in a writ petition being W.P. No. 2124/2008. However, on 24.7.2008 vide Annexure P/3, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to file a revision. A revision was filed before the Collector and vide Annexure P/5, the Collector rejected the prayer for interim relief. As prayer for interim relief was rejected, respondent No. 5 challenged the same before the Minister of the Department concerned and in the said proceedings made a statement that no proceeding is pending before the Collector, he has withdrawn the revision. The Minister of the Department concerned by the impugned order-dated 5.9.2008-Annexure P/6 allowed the case of respondent No. 5 and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

Learned counsel invites my attention to the order-dated 11.8.2008 and pointed out that this order is an interlocutory order and against this order the revision was filed before the Minister and in the said revision a wrong statement was made that the revision before the Collector has been withdrawn. It was not withdrawn, but it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 15.9.2008 and in support of the same, learned counsel has produced the document-Annexure P/5.

That apart, learned counsel submits that the order passed by the SDO (Revenue) in favour of the petitioner and various other persons, was interfered with by the Minister of the Department concerned without notice to the petitioner and others and, therefore, the same is unsustainable.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record, I find the contentions advanced by the petitioner to be correct. The order-dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Collector was only an interlocutory order, by which prayer for stay was rejected. After 11.8.2008, the matter was pending before the Collector and it was only on 15.9.2008 that the revision was dismissed for want of prosecution. Neither this fact was brought to the notice of the Minister of the Department concerned nor the order-dated 15.9.2008-Annexure P/5 dismissing the revision for want of prosecution was challenged before the Minister concerned. That apart, when the Minister set aside the order-dated 31.7.2008 passed by the SDO (Revenue), this order was passed at the instance of the petitioner and as the appeal filed by the petitioner before the SDO (Revenue) was allowed, by this order-dated 31.7.2008 the Minister should have issued notice to the petitioner, got the petitioner impleaded as a non-applicant and then only the revision could have been decided.

That apart, the most crucial legal question as to whether a second revision was maintainable before the Minister was also set aside while deciding the revision petition filed by respondent No. 5.

In view of all these infirmities, this petition is allowed. The order-dated 5.9.2008-Annexure P/6 passed by the Minister concerned and the consequential order-dated 6.11.2010-Annexure P/7 passed by Collector, Narsinghpur are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Minister concerned to decide the revision afresh in accordance to law after hearing all concerned, including the petitioner, as the order passed by the Minister and the consequential order of the Collector is quashed, the position as was existing on 11.8.2008, when the Collector dismissed the stay application, shall be restored.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.