Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Lakhan Mishra vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR (M.P.)
W.A. NO.595/2012
Ram Lakhan Mishra,
S/o Shri Shoukhilal Mishra,
Aged about 21 years,
By occupation: Secretary,
R/o Gram Panchayat, Hariharpur,
Tahsil Majhgawa,
District Satna (M.P.)
.....Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
Through: Secretary, Panchayat &
Social Justice Department,
Ministry, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal (M.P.)
2. Collector, Satna, District Satna (M.P.)
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Janpad Panchayat, Majhgawa,
Tahsil Majhgawa, District Satna (M.P)
4. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Majhgawa, District Satna (M.P.)
5. Gram Panchayat, Hariharpur,
Through: The Sarpanch, Tahsil Majhgawa,
District Satna (M.P.)
6. Shri Shashikant Vishwakarma,
S/o Basantilal Vishwakarma,
R/o Village Hariharpur,
Tahsil Majhgawa, District Satna (M.P.)
.....Respondents
and
W.A. No.596/2012
Ram Lakhan Mishra,
Aged about 21 years,
S/o Shri Shoukhilal Mishra,
R/o Village Hariharpur
Tahsil Majhgawa,
District Satna (M.P.) .....Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
Through its Secretary, Panchayat &
Social Justice Department,
Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.)
2. Gram Panchayat, Hariharpur,
Through its Sarpanch,
Tahsil Majhgawa,
District Satna (M.P.)
3. CEO Janpad Panchayat,
Majhgawa,
District Satna (M.P)
4. Arunendra Mishra,
S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Mishra,
R/o Village Hariharpur,
Tahsil Majhgawa,
District Satna (M.P.)
5. Shashikant Vishwakarma,
S/o Basant Lal Vishwakarma,
Aged about 22 years,
R/o Village Hariharpur,
Tahsil Majhgawa,
District Satna (M.P.)
.....Respondents
Present: Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti,
Hon. Smt. Justice Vimla Jain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.K. Samaiya, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Gantuly, P.L. for respondents/State.
Shri Brindawan Tiwari, Advocate for respondent-
Shashikant Vishwakarma.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(31.10.2012) Per Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J:
This order shall decide W.A. No.595/2012 and W.A. No.596/2012 filed by a common appellant against the respondents.
2. The learned Single Judge decided two writ petitions, one preferred by the appellant against an order passed by the Collector under Section 86(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "Panchayat Act") registered as W.P. No.2302/2008 and another writ petition was preferred by respondent Shashikant Vishwakarma for a direction to appoint him as Panchayat Karmi, which was registered as W.P. No.4100/2008.
The learned Single Judge by a common order decided both the matters and directed Collector, Satna to take a final decision in respect of appointment of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Hariharpur on the basis of the merit list prepared in pursuance of an advertisement dated 04.02.2008.
3. The appellant has assailed the aforesaid order on the following grounds:-
(1) That there was a resolution in favour of appellant for his appointment as Panchayat Karmi and as per resolution dated 25.12.2007 appellant was appointed on 25.12.2007 so there was no question of any other appointment under Section 86(2) of the Panchayat Act.
(2) That the appellant was a local candidate while respondent No.6 was not a local resident so his candidature was rightly rejected as per condition no.6 of the eligibility criteria fixed by the State Government in circular dated 13.08.2007.
It was submitted that writ appeals may be allowed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the Single Bench.
5. To appreciate rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the facts in short, which are thus:-
(a) That the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development issued a circular No.F-2-22/07 Panchayat dated 25.06.2007 for appointment of Panchayat Karmi.
(b) The Collector, Satna vide letter dated 18.07.2007 directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Majhgawan to appoint Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Hariharpur.
(c) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Majhgawan vide a letter dated 26.07.2007 directed Gram Panchayat for appointment of Panchayat Karmi within 15 days.
(d) In compliance of the aforesaid letter dated 26.07.2007, the Gram Panchayat, Hariharpur convened its meeting on 16.08.2007 in which on the basis of marks obtained in High School, a merit list was prepared in which the candidature of respondent Shashikant Vishwakarma was rejected on the ground that he was not a local resident of the Gram Panchayat though he was the meritorious candidate, with highest marks in High School.
(e) That Ramlakhan Mishra earned 66.6% marks in High School was in merit list at serial no.8 but was recommended for selection on the basis of majority by Gram Panchayat.
(f) No specific decision was taken by the Panchayat and the matter was referred to the Collector for his decision by Janpad Panchayat, Majhgawan vide letter dated 18.09.2007.
(g) The Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Justice vide letter dated 06.10.2007 directed Panchayat to complete the proceedings for selection of Panchayat Karmi as per Government's circular dated 13.08.2007. A fresh merit list was prepared and sent to the Collector on 03.11.2007 for his approval. In the subsequent merit list, respondent Shashikant Vishwakarma, who had earned 73.2% marks was placed at serial no.1 and Ramlakhan Mishra appellant who had earned 66.6% marks was placed at serial no.2. The matter was remanded on 23.11.2007 to the Panchayat for fresh consideration. Thereafter a reminder was sent on 01.12.2007 to the Panchayat to select the Panchayat Karmi within seven days.
(h) As no selection was made till 24.12.2007, the Collector had invoked the provisions of Section 86(2) of the Panchayat Act and vide letter dated 18.11.2008 directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Majhgawan to take recourse of section 86(2) of the Panchayat Act for appointment of Panchayat Karmi.
(i) The Chief Executive Officer had initiated process for selection between 12.02.2008 and 14.02.2008, prepared a merit list in which respondent Shashikant Vishwakarma was placed at serial no.1 and one Vinod Tripathi with 71.6% marks in waiting list.
(j) In the meantime, Gram Panchayat, before the proceedings under Section 86(2) could be completed, vide resolution dated 25.12.2007 again rejected the candidature of respondent Shashikant Vishwakarma and recommended appointment of the appellant as Panchayat Karmi by majority of votes.
(k) The Chief Executive Officer who had already proceeded under Section 86(2) of the Panchayat Act, issued an advertisement on 04.02.2008 for appointment of Panchayat Karmi.
(l) The appellant had challenged the action of the Chief Executive Officer under Section 86(2) of the Panchayat Act and consequential orders for appointment of Panchayat Karmi.
(m) Respondent Shashikant Vishwakarma also filed a writ petition before the Single Bench for quashment of order dated 28.12.2007 by which the appellant herein was appointed by the Panchayat and for a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Panchayat Karmi.
(n) The learned Single Judge considered the matter and found that the Gram Panchayat had not proceeded in the matter within a time period as fixed by letter dated 23.11.2007. The candidature of respondent Shashikant Vishwakarma was wrongly rejected on the ground of local resident and directed the Collector to take a final decision. This order is under challenge in this appeal.
6. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, few facts which are not in dispute, deserves to be referred, thus:-
(i) Respondent Shashikant Vishwakarma is not a resident of village Hariharpur.
(ii) That he was more meritorious in comparison to the appellant by earning 73.2% marks while appellant had earned 66.6% marks.
7. In this regard, the eligibility criteria in the circular dated 13.08.2007 may be looked into. Criteria No.5 provides that such candidate, as far as possible, be local so that the discharge of the work will be easy. The aforesaid provision though provides consideration of local candidate but it was not necessary to appoint only local candidate. If some meritorious candidate, as per other conditions was eligible, then the criteria of local resident was only as far as possible but not mandatory. The learned Single Judge rightly considered this aspect in which no fault is found.
8. So far as merit is concerned, it is not in dispute that respondent Shashikant Vishwakarma is more meritorious than appellant. When respondent No.6 is more meritorious, he was accordingly placed at serial no.1 in the merit list also, then his candidature could not have been rejected mainly on the ground that he was not a local resident. This question has already been settled by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.332/2012 (Devendra Pratap Singh vs. State) on 09.10.2012.
9. So far as the circular dated 13.08.2007 is concerned, it does not provide that merit can be ignored by majority of the votes. When there was no provision for selection of a candidate only by majority, then the merit could not have been ignored. [See- Suresh vs. C.E.O. 2012 (1) MPHT 74 (DB)]
10. In aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the candidature of respondent Shashikant Vishwakarma was wrongly rejected by the Gram Panchayat. He was a meritorious candidate and the Collector, Satna has been rightly directed to take a final decision in this regard.
11. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in these appeals. These appeals are dismissed with a direction to the Collector, Satna to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order. No order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain)
Judge Judge
psm