Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gram Panchayat Shyamgiri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 8 October, 2013
1
W.P. No. 17045/2013
8.10.2013
Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.P. Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State of M.P. on advance notice.
Order dated 4.6.2013 passed by the State Government / revisional authority is being assailed by this Writ Petition by Gram Panchayat Shyamgiri Janpad Panchayat Shahnagar, District Panna. By impugned order the revisional authority while dwelling upon the revision preferred by respondent No. 7 has directed for his appointment as Panchayat Karmi Gram Panchayat Shyamgiri.
The relevant facts leading to passing of impugned order briefly are that, Gram Panchayat Shyamgiri invited application for appointment of Panchayat Karmi and vide its meeting dated 3.1.2011, on the basis of majority of vote directed for appointment of respondent No. 6. Though there were other candidates having more marks than Dhanwan Singh.
The appointment of respondent No. 6 Dhanwan Singh was assailed by one Kuldeep Singh before Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 21.6.2011 while setting aside the appointment of Dhanwan Singh directed for fresh selection, as per the policy of the State Government. That an appeal preferred against the order dated 21.6.2011 was dismissed by Additional Collector by order dated 30.6.2012. The order passed by 2 Sub Divisional Officer and the order passed by the Additional Collector was assailed by the respondent No. 7 before the revisional authority / State Minister Panchayat and Rural Development Department. The Revisional Authority vide its order dated 30.6.2012 set aside the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer and the Appellate Authority and directed for appointment of respondent No. 7 as Panchayat Karmi who was first in the merit list prepared by Gram Panchayat Shyamgiri.
The order has been assailed mainly on the ground that it was beyond the jurisdiction of State Minister to have entertained second revision. It is further contended that it was not proper for the State Minister to have directed for the appointment of respondent No. 7 as Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Shyamgiri.
Considered the submission.
As to contention that second revision was not tenable before the State Minister, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, the same is no more res integra and has been settled at rest by decision in Abdul Hasan Qureshi vs. State of M.P. and others 2009 (1) MPHT 322 wherein while relying on the decision in Ravishankar Dube and others vs. Board of Revenue, M.P. and others 1972 JLJ 934 and Municipal Council, Khandwa vs. Santosh Kumar and others, 1975 JLJ 48 it has been held that :-
"22. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, it is held:-3
(i) ...........
(ii) ...........
(iii) Second revision before the State Govt.
against the revisional order of the officers mentioned in Rule 5 would lie after final disposal by such officers by virtue of clause (ii) of sub- rule (2) of Rule 5.
Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that it was beyond the jurisdiction of State Minister to have entertained second revision has no substance. The same is accordingly rejected.
As to contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner that instead of directing for appointment of respondent No. 7 as Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Shyamgiri, the revisional authority ought to have directed for fresh selection. It is observed that 26 persons applied for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi Shyamgiri, thereafter prepared a merit list wherein respondent No. 7 Shivram Singh having obtained 69.8 % was placed at serial No. 1.
Since the entire proceedings were drawn and it was only on the basis of majority of vote casted in favour of respondent No. 6 that he was appointed which was subsequently interfered with, in the considered opinion of this Court will not tantamount that entire selection proceedings got vitiated. It was only the appointment of respondent No. 7 which was contrary to the policy of the State Government. In view whereof, the State Minister was 4 within his right in directing the Gram Panchayat to appoint respondent No. 7 who was first in the merit list, as Panchayat Karmi.
Having this considered, no interference is caused. Petition fails and is dismissed. No cost.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE VKV/-