SABLU SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Ghanshyam Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

(2.) CHALLENGING the order passed by the Collector, Mandla in a revision filed by Respondent No. 6 in the matter of appointment of Panchayat Karmi to the Panchayat in question, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) FROM the records, it is seen that the SDO had conduced an inquiry and the Collector in the revision has exercised the powers of revision by going through the original records of selection and the report of the SDO. Once the Collector has found that a more meritorious candidate has been ignored and the less meritorious candidate has been appointed and as the circular and policy for appointment dated 13.8.2007 contemplates a provision for appointing the more meritorious candidate merely on the ground that the Collector has no jurisdiction to interfere in the revision, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. This Court exercising jurisdiction in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to ensure that substantial justice is done to the parties and the litigation should come to an end. The policy of the State Government and the requirement of the circular dated 13.8.2007 contemplates that merit has to be determined in accordance to the procedure indicates in the circular and a more meritorious candidates should be appointed.