LAWS(CHH)-2016-3-6

RAMSINGH KANWAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS.

Decided On March 28, 2016
Ramsingh Kanwar Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is substantively holding the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat seeks to challenge the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 16.03.2015 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 1/State of Chhattisgarh whereby respondent No. 4/Deputy Collector has been appointed on the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dondi, District Balod and the petitioner has been transferred on the post of In -charge Assistant Director, Office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Korba alleging the said appointment to be contrary to the applicable rule.

(2.) The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual matrix: - -

(3.) Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is discharging the duty of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat honestly and to the utmost satisfaction of his superior officer after having been substantially appointed on the said post on promotion, to which the Rules of 2006 is applicable and the said Rules governing the service conditions pertaining to Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat would show that post of Chief Executive Officer has to be filled up 40% by direct recruitment and 60% by way of promotion and there is no third source of recruitment on the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. Mr. Pali would further submit that respondent No. 4 is a Deputy Collector/State Administrative Junior Level Officer, he cannot be posted as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat as same would be contrary to the Rules of 2006 being impermissible in law. He would lastly submit that the petitioner can be replaced only by regular Chief Executive Officer and a person from outside cadre cannot be appointed on the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat in violation of Rules of 2006 and therefore the appointment of the respondent No. 4 in breach of Rules of 2006 is illegal and liable to be quashed and writ petition be allowed.