Udham Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

The writ jurisdiction of this Court u/Art. 226 is invoked seeking quashment of order dated 29.06.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional

Commissioner, Revenue Division Gwalior declining the appeal preferred by Dashrath Singh (respondent No.6 herein) with the following findings and

directions :-

(i) In absence of sufficient evidence, interference in the impugned order dated 21.06.2002 (Annexure P-4) of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila

Panchayat Guna is uncalled for.

(ii) While implementing the order dated 21.06.2002 the CEO, Zila Panchayat should also undertake the exercise of ascertaining whether Dashrath

Singh (respondent No.6 herein) had actually submitted his application and was a candidate in the selection process or not.

(iii) The order dated 21.06.2002 of the CEO, Zila Panchayat is upheld.

Learned counsel for the parties are heard for final disposal of the matter.

Before adverting to the contentions raised by the rival parties, for the sake of clarity the factual matrix is detailed below in chronological manner :-

Pertinently, the order of Single Bench of this Court passed on 11.11.2008 in WP No. 4591/2005 has not been challenged by any of the rival

parties and therefore, has attained finality.

In the backdrop of above factual matrix, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the appeal preferred by Dashrath Singhrespondent No.6 before

the CEO, Zila Panchayat was not maintainable since respondent No.6 had not even applied for appointment to the post of Guruji and therefore, had no

locus standii to assail the appointment of the petitioner- Udham Singh despite the appointment of the petitioner being unlawful, for not satisfying one of

the essential eligibility criteria of being “LFkkuh; O;fDrâ€- In this background, it is submitted that appeal by respondent No.6-Dashrath Singh ought

to have been thrown out at the very outset by the CEO, Zila Panchayat as not maintainable, instead of entertaining and allowing the same on merits

vide Annexure P-4.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the official respondents (respondents No. 1 to 5) have contended that as per their instructions only three

applications were received from Sumer Singh, Chandan Singh and Udham Singh (petitioner herein) for appointment as Guruji for EGS School,

Damdampura. It is thus submitted that respondent No.6 â€" Dashrath Singh infact never applied for the job.

Whereas learned counsel for the respondent No.6-Dashrath Singh has referred to document annexed with IA No. 723/2017( an application for

taking additional documents on record), being the list of applications received for appointment as Guruji in which the name of Dashrath Singh is shown

at S. No. 71 against the EGS School, Damdampura along with other six applications.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.4Janpad Panchayat, which is one of the functionaries involved in the process of

recruitment for the post of Guruji, has failed to produce record of recruitment in original, despite this Court adopting coercive method of issuing

bailable warrants against respondent NO.4 by order dated 31.10.2017 and 03.01.2018. This failure on the part of respondent No.4 has caused

hindrance in the discharge of judicial functions of this Court. Accordingly adverse inference is drawn against respondent No.4, by presuming that list

of applications received in the recruitment process inter alia for EGS School Damdumpura filed by the respondent No.6 along with IA No. 723/2017,

reflects the reality. Consequently, the objection of the petitioner that respondent No.6-Dashrath Singh did not apply for the appointment to the post of

Guruji is rejected.

More over, there is nothing on record to indicate that said list of seven applications for the said school having been received by the recruiting agency

is not correct. A bare perusal of the order impugned passed by Additional Commissioner reflects that there has been no application of mind to the real

controversy as to whether the petitioner satisfies the essential requisite qualification for being considered and appointed as Guruji.

9.1 The Scheme vide Annexure P-2 which governs the process of recruitment and appointment in question lays down the following essential eligibility

criteria :-

(I) The candidate should possess minimum educational qualification of Higher Secondary pass for male candidates and High School pass for female

candidates.

(ii) The applicant shall be a “LFkkuh; O;fDrâ€​ meaning thereby that he is resident of the Basahat where the school in question is to be opened.

(iii) If “LFkkuh; O;fDrâ€​ having requisite educational qualification is not available then the persons residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Gram

Panchayat, within which the Basahat falls and otherwise eligible shall be considered. (iv) If persons described in clause “(iii)†above are not

available then, only as an exception, educationally qualified persons belonging to adjoining village / Gram Panchayat can be considered.

(iv) Women candidates would be given priority.

From the above provisions of the Scheme (Annexure P-2) it is evident as day light that it prescribes as an essential eligibility criteria that the

candidate should be “LFkkuh; O;fDrâ€​ meaning thereby that he should be a permanent resident of the Basahat / village where the EGS school is to

be opened in which the appointment proposed is to be made. It is only when none of the available candidate are found to be resident of Basahat, then

and only then, the recruiting agency can widen the zone of consideration to include even those candidates who are residents of other villages falling

within the same Gram Panchayat within which the EGS school is proposed to be opened.  When such candidates, who are residents of area

beyond the Basahat but within the territorial jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat are not available then and only then the zone for consideration can be

further widened to include candidates who are permanent residents of adjoining Gram Panchyats.

On the anvil of above said Scheme, especially the essential eligibility criteria which has direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the

Scheme (Annexure P-2), if the factual matrix of this case is tested then it is seen that the petitioner does not dispute that he is neither the resident of

Damdumpura Basahat nor a resident of Gram Panchayat within which the Damdumpura Basahat falls. The petitioner has categorically admitted

that he is resident of the adjoining Gram Panchayat Magron therefore the candidature of the petitioner-Udham Singh could be considered only if there

were no eligible candidate being residents of Basahat in question or of Gram Panchyat in question. Since this Court by drawing adverse inference

has treated the candidature of respondent No.6 to be a valid one and in the absence of any contrary evidence filed by the petitioner herein, this Court

has no hesitation to hold that the respondent No.6 was an eligible candidate who was resident of Damdumpura Basahat possessing the minimum

educational and residential qualification as per the Scheme (Vide Annexure P-2).

Accordingly, the finding rendered by CEO, Zila Panchyat on 21.06.2002 (Vide Annexure P-4) that the petitioner Udham Singh was not eligible to

be considered for appointment to the post of Guruji at EGS School Damdumpura cannot be found fault with. As a necessary consequence, the

direction to cancel the appointment of petitioner- Udham Singh dated 27.10.2001 (Annexure P-3), is legal and valid.

What now remains to be considered is legality and validity of the direction of CEO, Zila Panchayat (Vide Annexure P-4) directing the respondent

No.6-Dashrath Singh to be appointed as Guruji at EGS School Damdumpura.

13.1 This Court has already held supra that the candidature of respondent No.6 is legal and valid by drawing adverse inference against recruiting

agency Janpad Panchyat. More so, the list of applications received by Janpad Panchyat filed by respondent No.6 along with IA No. 723/2017 reflects

that recruiting agency had received seven applications for the EGS school Damdumpura including that of the respondent No.6 Dashrath Singh, it is

now to be seen that among said seven candidates including that of the petitioner, who is the most suitable. This exercise recommending the best

among the available competing candidates ought to be left for the recruiting agency to be undertaken. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction

ought not to step into the shoes of recruiting or appointing agency.

Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the following terms :-

(i) The impugned order of Additional Commissioner, Revenue Division Gwalior dated 29.06.2009 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 21.02.2006

(Annexure P-4) of CEO, Zila Panchayat Guna to the extent it holds the petitioner to be inelligble to be appointed as Guruji and consequential

quashment of appointment of petitioner Udham Singh dated 27.10.2001, are upheld.

(ii) The recruiting agency, as per Scheme (Annexure P-2), is directed to consider the candidature of all the seven available and eligible candidates

including respondent No.6 and prepare a fresh merit list and thereafter issue appointment order in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme in

favour of the most suitable candidate on the post of Guruji at EGS school Damdumpura, Gram Panchayat Maheshpura, Block Chachoda, Distt.Guna.

(iii) Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The impugned of Additional

Commissioner Revenue Division Gwalior dated 26.06.2009 (Annexure P-1) and the order of CEO, Zila Panchayat dt. 21.06.2006 (Annexure P-4)

are accordingly modified to the extent indicated above.

(iv) Since the Janpad Panchayat Chachoda has caused hindrance in the judicial process by failing to produce the record of recruitment despite

adoption of coercive steps by this Court, the Janpad Panchayat is saddled with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) to be deposited with the

Registry of this Court with liberty to Janpad Panchayat to recover the same from erring employees / Officer in accordance with law.