UMED DAS Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. 1. This petition has been brought under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 4.11.2008 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue confirming the orders of the Courts below.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are these that Anand Das was the village Kotwar who was unable to perform duty because of old-age. After his resignation, the petitioner was appointed as Kotwar by the order dated 18.8.2000 on temporary basis. The applications were invited for appointment of village Kotwar. The petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 filed applications. The temporary appointment of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar before Sub-Divisional Officer. The SDO by order dated 14.12.2000 cancelled the temporary appointment and directed to initiate proceedings to make permanent appointment. The village Panchayat forwarded the proposal in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 canvassed his eligibility on the ground that he is the adopted son of the earlier Kotwar Anand Das and a temporary appointment was given to respondent No.1 by order dated 20.2.2001. The petitioner then filed an appeal before SDO, which was allowed by order dated 10.5.2001 by remanding the case, with a direction to decide the case in accordance with the provision under Sec. 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'Code, 1959'). Respondent No.1 then preferred a revision before the Collector, which was dismissed. Subsequent to which, Tehsildar Palmgarh decided the case of appointment as Kotwar and recorded the finding that the petitioner is the most eligible candidate, hence, the petitioner he was appointed as permanent Kotwar by the order dated 19.3.2002.

(3.) Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before SDO against the order of Tehsildar for appointing the petitioner as permanent Kotwar, which was dismissed by the order dated 29.8.2002 (Annexure-P/3). Second appeal before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa was also dismissed by the order dated 13.3.2006 (Annexure-P/4). The challenge of respondent No.1 before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue to these orders in revision petition by preferring a revision petition was allowed in which the impugned order dated 4.11.2008 (Annexure-P/1) was passed.