KRISHNADATT AWASTHY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After perusal of the judgment and view expressed by esteemed brother Justice K.V. Viswanathan, in the facts of this case, I am not in a position to agree with the reasoning and conclusions as drawn by him, for which detailed reasons supporting my view is in succeeding paragraphs.

(2.) As per the facts of the case, the controversy in the present case revolves around selection and appointment for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade­III in Janpad Panchayat Gaurihar, District Chhatarpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh which relates back to the year 1998. The appellants who are ten (10) in number and four (4) other candidates, in total fourteen (14) candidates who were close relatives of the members of selection committee, had been placed in the final selection list of 249 Shiksha Karmi Grade­III. For ready reference the appellants and their relations are described in a tabular form as under: ­

(3.) It is not inapposite to mention that at the previous stage of selection, after preparation of the select list of Shiksha Karmi Grade­III by Janpad Panchayat, Gaurihar, the same was challenged by one Kunwar Vijay Bahadur Singh Bundela by filing an appeal before the Collector, District Chhatarpur, who vide order dtd. 31/8/1998 quashed the selection list and remitted the matter for fresh selection. Pursuant to the directions, fresh selection was conducted and the final selection list consisting of 249 candidates including the names of appellants and four others was published on 16/9/1998. As per the said select list appointment orders were issued on 17/9/1998 appointing the candidates including the present appellants. Being aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the appellants who were near relatives of members of the selection committee and non­selection of Smt. Archana Mishra who was an aspirant, filed an appeal before the Collector, District Chhatarpur on various grounds including the allegations as quoted in paragraph 14 of the order passed by esteemed brother. It is not in dispute that the present appellants were not impleaded as parties in the appeal before the Collector, though Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Block Development Education Officer and the President of the Education Committee were arrayed as parties.