Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 November, 2012
Sanjeev Singh Rajpur Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Writ Petition No. 18979 / 2012
9.11.2012:
Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer present on
behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.
Shri O.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel in W.P. No.14816/2012 is also
present and the said writ petition is filed by respondent No.5 Shri Ashish
Mishra.
Facts that have come on record indicates that the process of
appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak was undertaken in the Panchayat in question and based on the procedure conducted it is seen that respondent No.5 Shri Ashish Mishra was appointed. Challenging appointment of Shri Ashish Mishra, petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, the Collector took note of the grievance of petitioner and in the said appeal filed by petitioner before the Collector Shri Ashish Mishra was impleaded as respondent No.1. After going through the material available on record the Collector recorded findings on 26.6.2012, in the said appeal and held that Shri Ashish Mishra is not eligible to participate in the process of appointment, as he is not a local residence and, therefore, his appointment was quashed. Shri Ashish Mishra had challenged the said order of Collector in W.P. No.14816/2012 and after hearing learned counsel for Shri Ashish Mishra on 5.9.2012 notice has been issued to all concerned by this Court, however, no interim order has been passed.
It seems that merely because a notice has been issued to all concerned in the writ petition filed by Shri Ashish Mishra, the impugned order Annexure P-1 has been passed, by which due to pendency of W.P. No.14816/2012 the order passed with regard to appointment of the petitioner on 30.7.2012 has been stayed. Merely because in a writ petition filed by Shri Ashish Mishra notice has been issued it was not appropriate for the Chief Executive Officer to stay appointment of the petitioner. Prima facie the Collector after examining the case on merit having found Shri Ashish Mishra not eligible for appointment or even to participate in the selection process and when Court had only issued notice and had not 2 granted stay, it is not known as to how and on what basis the Chief Executive Officer has passed the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed only by referring to the pendency of writ petition before this Court and in the absence of any interim order passed by this Court, the order of the Collector which has found that Shri Ashish Mishra is not a local resident and cannot participate in the process of selection should have been given effect to, that being so, the action of the Chief Executive Officer seems to be arbitrary and unsustainable, which cannot be upheld by this Court.
In view of above the petition is allowed, impugned order dated 14.8.2012 is quashed and the competent authority is directed to proceed in the matter of selection in accordance to law, subject to any order that may be passed in the writ petition filed by Shri Ashish Mishra, i.e. W.P. No.14816/2012.
With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-