ASHISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order-dated 28.2.2009 passed by the Collector, and the order-dated 23.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner in the matter of appointment of Panchayat Karmi, to the Panchayat in question, Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) In pursuance to a policy formulated by the State Government on 25.6.2007, for appointment of Panchayat Karmis, Gram Panchayat Nagda under Janpad Panchayat Khurai issued an advertisement on 5.7.2007 calling for desirable candidates to submit their application on or before 20.7.2007 as per the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The advertisement dated 5.7.2007 is Annexure P/1. In all 20 applications were received and on 21.8.2007, meeting was called for and a merit list was prepared. In accordance to merit, Petitioner having received 71% marks in Class X Examination was kept at Serial No. 1. However, Respondent No. 6, who had secured 64.2% marks, was directed to be appointed by resolution of certain Panchas on 21.8.2007 - Annexure P/2. As the resolution passed was not correct and as the merit was being ignored, Petitioner submitted a representation to the Collector vide Annexure P/3. On this being done, the Panchayat again called for meeting and the Nodal Officer was directed to be present in the Meeting. In the presence of the Nodal Officer again when the Gram Panchayat recommended for appointment of Respondent No. 6, the Nodal Officer did not agree and objected to the resolution-dated 25.9.2007 - Annexure P/4. Due to this, the Collector exercising powers under Section 86(2) directed the CEO to take action in the matter and on the same the Petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi vide order-dated 10.3.2008 and thereafter Petitioner was notified as the Panchayat Secretary. The order of appointment of the Petitioner is Annexure P/5, which was issued on 24.3.2008. Petitioner joined the post and while he was so working Respondent No. 6 filed a petition before this Court and raised an objection to the effect that Petitioner was a minor and, therefore, could not be appointed. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition vide Annexure P/6 and directed the Collector to look into the matter. The Collector taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the requirement of paragraph 3.3 of the Scheme dated 12.9.95 found that Respondent No. 6 had passed the 12th Examination and, therefore, the Panchayat was entitled to give preference to Respondent No. 6 and, therefore, approved the appointment of Respondent No. 6. Aggrieved thereof Petitioner preferred an appeal and the same having been dismissed by the Commissioner, Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) That apart, it was pointed out that the Gram Panchayat has taken note of the fact that as on 1.1.2007 Petitioner would be less than 18 years of age and, therefore, he cannot be appointed. Emphasizing that no cut-off date for determining the age with reference to 1.7.2007 is prescribed and the Petitioner was more than 18 years and 2 months on 21.8.2007, which was the last date for submission of the application, challenge is made to the action impugned.