Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Singh Bhadoriya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 September, 2014
1 WP.1095/2009
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SB: Justice Sujoy Paul
Writ Petition. No.1095/2009
Rajesh Singh Bhadoriya
Vs.
State of M.P. And Ors.
&
Writ Petition. No. 2493/2009
Mahaveer Sharma
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the petitioner in WP No.
1095/2009.
Shri Nitin Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner in WP No. 2493/2009 and
Advocate for the respondent No.5 in WP No. 1095/2009.
Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, G.A. for the respondents / State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( 24 / 09 / 2014) Since matters are inter connected, on the joint request of the parties, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.
2. In WP No. 1095/2009 the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.10.2008 whereby Commissioner, Gwalior Division, has allowed the revision filed by respondent No.5 against the appointment of the petitioner. Consequential order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the Collector is also under challenge in this petition.
3. In WP No. 2493/2009 the petitioner (respondent No.5 of WP No. 1095/2009) has prayed for direction to appoint him on the post of Panchayat Karmi being the only meritorious candidate ( No.1 in the waiting list). Petitioner Rajesh Singh Bhadoriya was appointed as Panchayat Karmi which was called in question by respondent No.5 by filing an appeal before the Collector. The Collector by order dated 2 WP.1095/2009 24.09.2007 rejected the said appeal. Against that order, respondent No.5 preferred revision which was decided on 13.10.2008 ( Annexure P/2). Learned counsel for the parties during the course of argument fairly admit that petitioner Rajesh Singh Bhadoriya is more meritorious. The only question needs consideration is whether the petitioner Rajesh Singh Bhadoriya can be said to be ineligible if he was not a local resident?
4. It is seen that in order dated 13.10.2008, the Commissioner has given finding against the petitioner Rajesh Singh Bhadoriya's selection holding that certain objections were taken by the members present at the meeting. The question of his eligibility based on the alleged requirement of "local resident" was not addressed. It is also noticed that this question is also not addressed by the Commissioner and he thought it proper to remand it back to the Collector. I deem it proper to deal with this aspect in the present petition. Clause 3.5 of "Panchayat Karmi Yojna" dated 12th September, 1995 reads as under:-
"3.5 ,slk mEehnokj ;Fkk laHko LFkkuh; gksA blls dk;Z dj ikus esa vklkuh gksxkhA**
5. No other enabling provision was brought to the notice of this Court which deals with the requirement of "local resident". The question is whether on the basis of this requirement, the petitioner Rajesh Singh Bhadoriya can be said to be ineligible. In my opinion, this point is no more res integra. In AIR 2002 SC 2876 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee Vs. Mussoorie Dehradun Dev. Aty. And others.) the apex Court opined as under :-
"Residence within a District or rural areas of that District could not be a valid basis for classification for the purpose of public employment. The argument in favour of such reservation which has the overtones of parochialism is liable to be rejected on the plain perms of Art. 16 (2) and in the light of Art. 16(3). An argument of this nature flies in the face of the peremptory language of Art. 16(2) and runs counter to our constitutional ethos founded on unity and integrity of the nation. Residence by itself- be it be within a State, region, District or lesser area within a District- cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation save as provided in Art. 16(3). It is not 3 WP.1095/2009 possible to compartmentalise the State into Districts with a view to offer employment to the residents of that District on a preferential basis."
This court in 2008 (IV) MPJR SN 21 ( Raj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) opined that it is very unfortunate that a candidate who is more meritorious has been deprived of legitimate right of appointment on the post of Panchyat Karmi that too by appointing a person who is holding the lesser qualification. Considering the same, this court opined that respondents have erred in ousting the petitioner by taking shelter of clause 3.5 of aforesaid policy.
6. The same view is taken in 2011(2) M.P.L.J 392 (Jai Prakash Batham Vs. State of M.P. and others) in which this Court opined that merit is the main criteria and requirement of local resident cannot be a ground for ousting the candidate. In the opinion of this Court, this being a pure legal question should have been addressed by the Commissioner himself. Commissioner has clearly erred in remanding the matter for consideration before Collector. The Collector, in turn, passed his order dated 27.02.2009 (Annexure P/1). In this order, he did not deal with the question of eligibility of petitioner on point of "local residence". Thus, orders Annexure P/1 & P/2 cannot be permitted to stand.
7. At the cost of repetition, in the opinion of this Court, respondents have erred in depriving the petitioner from the fruits of selection on the ground of alleged requirement of local residence. Resultantly, order dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P/2) and consequential order (Annexure P/1) are set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner ( if he is otherwise eligible and his contract / contract period is not over). Reinstatement ( if any) be made within 30 days. WP No. 1095/2009 is accordingly allowed.
8. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, WP No. 2493/2009 is dismissed. No costs.
(SUJOY PAUL)
Sarathe/- Judge