KALPNATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the validity of order dated 22.11.2010 contained in Annx. P/9, passed by the respondent Collector, Rewa, by which the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Hanumana, has been set aside and the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 is allowed, the order of appointment of petitioner as Panchayat Karmi so issued, has been set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Gram Panchayat for making appointment of a Panchayat Karmi, in accordance to the provisions of Panchayat Karmi Scheme as also the circular issued by the State Government from time to time.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that such an order could not have been passed as the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 against the order of the appointment of petitioner was found to be hopelessly barred by limitation and the said appeal was rightly dismissed by order dated 16.7.2009 (Annx. P/5) under the provisions of Rule 4 and 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Rules for brevity). It is contended by the petitioner that the Collector Rewa has not considered the aspect that the accrued right of the petitioner could not have been taken away; secondly, the entire consideration was, as if, the selection of a Panchayat Karmi was to be done on the basis of merits only and, therefore, such findings given by the appellate authority the respondent Collector are perverse. Therefore, the order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The present writ petition was entertained, the notices were issued to the respondents and an interim protection was granted to the petitioner on 7.12.2010 by this Court. Subsequently, the order of interim stay granted by this Court was vacated vide order dated 2.2.2011. The respondents have filed their return. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have contended that as per the Scheme, the selection was required to be made only on the basis of merit obtaining on account of marks secured in the qualifying examination and, as such, the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat selecting a less meritorious person was not correct. Accordingly, the orders were rightly passed by the appellate authority setting aside such an action and directing appointment of a person strictly on the basis of merit.