Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Singh Raghuvanshi vs State Of M.P. on 30 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-3063-2009
(MAHENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Vs STATE OF M.P. )
sh
3
Gwalior, Dated : 30-11-2017
e
ad
Shri D.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kamal Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State. Pr
a Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the hy order dt.04.07.2009 rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner ad against the order of the Collector Vidisha.
Brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner M was a candidate for appointment of Panchayat Karmi and the Gram of Panchayat Akadoda, Tahsil Basoda issued an appointment order dt.30.09.2005 in favour of the petitioner and thereafter a complaint rt was made as contained in Annexure P/3 by one of the members of the ou Gram Panchayat, in which it was alleged that the provisions of the C Panchayat Rules in regard to appointment of Panchayat Karmi have h not been taken into consideration and arbitrarily the order of ig appointment has been issued in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted H that the complainant had taken such objection in regard to violation of rules and not maintaining the sanctity of the selection in terms of the rules but said complaint was not taken into consideration and no note was taken of such complaint by the concerned Nodal Officer Shri S.P.Shrivastava. Sarpanch had proposed name of the petitioner as well as one Gajendra Singh S/o Diwan Singh, who is the brother of the petitioner and though the Sarpanch was the proposer of these names in violation of the rules, he and the President of the committee in the meeting had casted their votes in favour of the petitioner and no information was provided as to whose name was proposed for which post. In view of such complaint, SDO Basoda had taken cognizance on the complaint and had taken note of the fact that one Shri Pradeep sh Singh Raghhuvanshi had secured 68.6% marks in the High School, e whereas the petitioner had only secured 47% marks and the candidates ad belonging to SC and ST categories were not taken into consideration and had accordingly remitted the matter to the Gram Panchayat Pr exercising authority under Section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh a Panchayat Raj Evvam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 to reconsider the hy proposal dt.30th September 2005. This order of the SDO was ad challenged before the Collector Vidisha and the Collector Vidisha had set aside the order of the SDO being without jurisdiction and had M directed the Gram Panchayat Akadoda to take into consideration of government instructions dt.12.12.1995 and the report of the Social Organizer Janpad Panchayat Basoda dt.5.10.2005 to reconsider its rt resolution and pass a fresh resolution. This order of the Collector ou dt.10.08.2006 was challenged before the Additional Commissioner, C who has refused to interfere with the order of the Collector. h It is petitioner's condition that the impugned order is arbitrary ig and unjust and SDO had not provided any opportunity to him before H passing the impugned order. Further, as far as percentage of Pradeep Singh Raghuvanshi is concerned, he was having less qualification as compared to the petitioner because the petitioner is graduate and further the Collector Vidisha had passed the order which is totally out of record. It has also been submitted that once the Collector Vidisha has held the order of SDO tobe void, then the Collector was not authorized to direct the Panchayat to re-initiate the process of appointment untill and unless it is held in the inquiry regarding validity of the appointment procedure.
Respondent/State on the other hand has submitted that the due process of law was not followed and therefore the authorities have rightly interfered in the matter and further the petitioner had an sh opportunity of hearing before the Collector and the Collector after e giving an opportunity of hearing has passed the impugned order, ad which has been affirmed by the Additional Commissioner.
Learned counsel for the State has also supported the order of the Pr Collector and the Additional Commissioner on the ground that a interested Sarpanch and the President of the committee had voted and hy had ignored the higher marks of the private respondent so also the ad provisions contained in Circular dt.12.12.1995. It is also submitted that though the petitioner was appointed on the basis of majority but M no merit list was prepared on the basis of qualification nor the of provisions of the Adhiniyam were followed and therefore since the appointment of the petitioner is laced with nepotism has been rightly rt set aside by the authorities with a further direction to take fresh steps ou to reconsider its resolution. It is also submitted that the Gram C Panchayat had already reconsidered the resolution and has issued h appointment order in favour of the private respondent, which does not ig call for interference in the present case. H Issue involved in this case is twofold; whether the provisions of circular dt.12.12.1995 were followed and also whether any merit list was prepared overlooking merits of the candidates to accommodate some less meritorious persons. The petitioner has failed to produce any material to show that he was more meritorious than other candidates and circular, issued by the State Government and the rules framed from time to time were violated. In the absence of there being any material to rebut the issues raised in the complaint contained in Annexure P/3, this court is of the opinion that the Collector and Additional Commissioner have not committed any irregularities or illegalities in the matter of remanding the matter to the Gram Panchayat for reconsidering its resolution and such order do not call sh for any interference specially when the petitioner has failed to e discharge its burden to show that the allegations made in the complaint ad were baseless, arbitrary and malafide. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.
Pr a (VIVEK AGARWAL) hy JUDGE ad M SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P. S., postalCode=474011, KUMAR st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=b127bc1c16d2794cb53e7637ddf 59a1c3bd3662e8c5de5d5505a6b3e4d77 be89, 2.5.4.45=0321009FFE813C9581B6F5694F PHANSE 843759E99F2752C38621A39C94CA45FC8 30FF0F028B5, cn=SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE of Date: 2017.12.07 14:54:51 +05'30' SP rt ou C h ig H