Surajpal Singh vs State of M.P.

The petitioner has filed the present petition

challenging the order dated 04.06.2012 passed by respondent

no.2 whereby the second appeal preferred by respondent no.8

before the State Minister has been allowed as well as the order

dated 12.07.2012 whereby respondent no.8 has been granted

Secretarial Powers in pursuance of Section 69(1) of the

Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. A meeting was convened on

14.09.2007 by respondent no. 7 for filling up the post of

Panchayat Karmi and 27 applications were received and thereafter proposal was passed for appointment on the post of

Panchayat Karmi.

The petitioner was placed at serial no.2 in the merit

list securing 64.4% marks while respondent no.8 has secured

only 50.6 marks. On 14.09.2007 a resolution was passed

thereby appointing respondent no.8 as Panchayat Karmi

thereafter an appointment order was also issued in favour of

the respondent no.8, thereafter vide order dated 29.12.2007,

respodent no.8 was notified as Secretary of Gram Panchayat.

Being aggrieved by the appointment of respondent no.8 four

appeals were preferred before the Sub Divisional Officer. Sub

Divisional Officer vide order dated 18.12.2009 set aside the

appointment of respondent no.8 on the ground that it is not in

accordance with the instructions and guidelines issued by the

State Government. Respondent no.8 thereafter preferred an

appeal before the Collector against the order dated 18.12.2009

passed by the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 91 read

with rule 5 of the Appeal and Revision Rules 1995. The Collector vide order dated 29.11.2010 affirm the orders of the

Sub Divisional Officer holding that the appointment of

respondent no.8 is not in accordance with the guidelines and

instructions. The Collector has further directed that the

appointment proceedings for the post of Panchayat Karmi as

the Sub Block Officer has no jurisdiction to set aside the

proposal of the Gram Panchayat and separate proceedings of

suspension of the resolution and order dated 14.09.2007 has

been initiated. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the

appointment of respondent no.8 and the order dated

29.04.2010 passed by the Collector, filed a separate appeal

under Section 85(1) of the Adhiniyam before the Collector. The

Collector remanded the said appeal to the Sub Divisional

Officer vide order dated 29.04.2011. Respondent no.8 being

aggrieved by the order of the Collector dated 29.04.2011

preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The

said appeal was rejected vide impugned order dated

08.11.2011. Respondent no.8 thereafter preferred a revision

under Rule 5 before the Sate Minister challenging the order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner. The

concerned Minister vide order dated 04.06.2012 allowed the

revision preferred by respondent no.8 and set aside the orders

passed by the Collector as well as Additional Commissioner.

Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the

present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

order passed by respondent no.2 is illegal and arbitrary. He

submits that in the revision before respondent no.2 the

petitioner was not impleaded as a party. She was not given

any opportunity of hearing before respondent no.2, therefore,

the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded

back to respondent no.2 to decide the case on merits.

Respondents no.1 to 6 have filed their reply and in

the reply they have stated that respondent no.2 has passed

the order after considering the entire facts on record. He

submits that while deciding the revision, respondent no.2 has

framed two issues, firstly; whether the resolution dated 14.09.2007 is still enforce and secondly; whether the

respondent no.8 is entitled for the appointment on the post of

Panchayat Karmi. After considering the entire records,

respondent no.2 has found that the resolution dated

14.09.2007 is still enforce and upheld the appointment of

respondent no.8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid, learned

Government Advocate submits that no interference is required

by this Court in this petition.

Respondents no.8 and 9 have not filed any reply

though served.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record. The petitioner has filed the present

petition challenging the order dated 04.06.2012 passed by

respondent no.2. By the said order, respondent no.2 has set

aside the orders passed by the Collector as well as the

Commissioner. From perusal of the order, it reveals that

although the appeal and revision was preferred by the

petitioner she was not impleaded as a party in the said revision. She has not given any opportunity of hearing by

respondent no.2.

Thus, only on this short ground, I allowed this

petition and set aside the order dated 04.06.2012 passed by

respondent no.2 and the matter is remanded back to

respondent no.2 to decide the revision preferred by

respondent no.8 afresh after impleading the petitioner as a

party after giving opportunity of hearing to all the concerned.

Respondent no.2 still decide the matter within a period of four

months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without any

order as to costs.

Certified copy as per rules.