Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ratiram Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 November, 2012
W. P. No. 18459/12
2/11/12
Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the
State.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the
procedure for appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. It is stated by
the petitioner that as per the scheme governing the appointment, an
aggrieved person is granted a liberty to raise an objection and a
proper committee is required to consider and decide the objection.
In this case, it is stated that the objection of the petitioner
with regard to grant of certain marks for computer education has
not been considered and the matter is being proceeded with
without deciding the objection. Accordingly, contending that the
action is unsustainable, this petition has been filed.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents points out that in the matter of appointment of Gram
Rojgar Sahayak, the provisions of appeal as contained in the M. P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision Rules) 1995 is applicable and as a statutory remedy of appeal is available, merely because certain provisions in the guidelines dated 2/06/12 is not followed, interference into the matter is not called for. These questions have to be considered and decided by the appellate authority.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that when a statutory remedy for challenging the process of appointment is available to the petitioner, interference directly by this Court in a writ petition is not called for.
Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference, this petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy for filing an appeal.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-