VISHNU CHANDRAKAR Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Correctness and sustainability of the order dtd. 24/10/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order passed by the Director, Panchayat dtd. 12/12/2007, is put to challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 5/4/2005 Village Panchayat Pauha, Block Patan, District Durg had issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of 'Panchayat Karmi'. Pursuant to said advertisement, petitioner/appellant and 8 others have applied for the post of Panchayat Karmi. In the meeting of village panchayat dtd. 25/4/2005, wherein 14 members of village panchayat were present, upon examining application and in view of the terms and conditions of advertisement, the petitioner/ appellant has been selected by majority of votes i.e. 11:3. On the basis of said selection on majority of votes of members of village panchayat, the order of appointment has been issued by the Sarpanch, Village Panchayat on 28/4/2005. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat has proposed name of petitioner to the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, for appointing him as Secretary of village panchayat, which was approved and the order of appointment of petitioner/appellant as Secretary was passed on 4/5/2005 under Sec. 69 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (henceforth 'the Adhiniyam, 1993'). Appointment of petitioner/ appellant was challenged by respondent No.4 by filing an appeal before the Director, Panchayat mainly on the ground that at the time of appointment of petitioner/appellant, brother of appellant was holding post of Panch in village panchayat, as such appointment of petitioner/appellant is void and illegal. On the appeal filed by respondent No.4, the Director, Panchayat had issued notice to appellant as well as respondent No.5-Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Pauha for their appearance and submission of reply. The Director, Panchayat taking into consideration the grounds urged in appeal, written submissions filed by respective parties and further considering the proviso to Sec. 69 (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, vide order dtd. 12/12/2007 held that proceedings of appointment of Panchayat Karmi were not in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 69 (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and set aside the order of appointment of appellant dtd. 4/5/2005. Petitioner/appellant filed writ petition bearing WPS No.537/2008 before the High Court challenging the order dtd. 12/12/2007 on the grounds mentioned therein. Said writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 24/10/2019 and on the said date, the learned Single Judge after hearing both the sides and taking note of the provisions contained in Sec. 69 (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, dismissed writ petition by the impugned order.

(3.) Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the Director as also the learned Single Judge fell into error in arriving at conclusion that proviso to Sec. 69 (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, inserted vide Amendment dtd. 7/1/1997, applies to the appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmis. He submits that proviso to Sec. 69 (1) is applicable to Panchayat Secretary only and not to Panchayat Karmi as the Panchayat Karmis are not appointed under the Adhiniyam, 1993 and their appointment is under the scheme framed by the State Government known as 'The Panchayat Karmi Scheme, 1995' (for short 'the Scheme of 1995'), which was initially formulated in the year 1995 by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. He also pointed out that Panchayat Karmis after their appointment are recommended by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat to the Collector for being appointed as Panchayat Secretary and the Collector under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1993 appoints/ declare them as Secretary Panchayat. He also brought to the notice of this Court that prior to 1995, the work of village Panchayat Secretary was being performed by Gram Sahayak, a government servant, but after framing of the Scheme of 1995, the post of Gram Sahayak has been declared as 'dying cadre'. Appointment of petitioner/appellant is made under the Scheme of 1995. Appointments of Panchayat Karmi and Panchayat Secretary are for two distinct posts. In support of afore submission, learned counsel places his reliance on Prahlad Singh Patel vs. State of MP & ors reported in 2000