PURSHOTTAM Vs. BABUDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The verdict passed by the learned Single Judge with regard to the orders passed by the District Collector and the Board of Revenue, in connection with the appointment of Kotwar granting relief to the writ petitioner who is the 1st respondent herein, is sought to be interdicted in the appeal preferred by the person who was arrayed as the 6 th respondent in the writ petition.

(2.) Heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Renu Kochar, learned counsel appearing for 1 st respondent/ writ petitioner, besides the learned counsel representing the State.

(3.) The sequence of events reveals that the post of Kotwar in the Village Chanderi fell vacant way back in the year 2001-02, pursuant to which, an application was invited by the Tahsildar who was the competent authority to fill up the vacancy. The appellant herein as well as the 1 st respondent were the applicants. It is the case of appellant that, by virtue of the better qualifications and such other aspects, the Gram Sabha passed a resolution to appoint the appellant herein and the same was forwarded to the Tahsildar. But on police verification, it was brought on record that the appellant herein was involved in some criminal cases (offence punishable under Sections 342 and 376 of I.P.C.), and in such circumstances, the Tahsildar, taking note of the relevant rules framed under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, decided to appoint the 1 st respondent herein and an order was passed accordingly on 4-2-2002.