ANUPAM GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 26-12-2008 passed by respondent No. 6 as also seeking a direction against the respondents to make appointment pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner, appointing him on the post of Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat, Latagaon, District Satna. A further direction is sought against respondent No. 5 to take decision in the pending proceedings regarding appointment of petitioner as per the resolution of the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) Facts in brief of the case are that the Gram Panchayat, Latagaon was directed to take action for appointment of a Panchayat Karmi and for the said purpose, an advertisement was issued on 3-8-2007 by the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. The applications were invited. Pursuant to this, the petitioner submitted his application. As many as 25 applications were received by the Gram Panchayat and a meeting of Gram Panchayat was convened on 26-8-2007. The name of the petitioner was put at S. No. 1 of the list of candidates, who have applied for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi, taking into account the marks obtained by him in the qualifying examination, which according to the resolution are 71.2%. It is said that after considering all the applications, four Panchas gave their opinion that the petitioner be appointed as Panchayat Karmi in the said Gram Panchayat. However, out of 19, 14 Panchas gave their opinion that one Satyendra Pratap Singh Bundela be appointed on the post. There was no selection held pursuant to the instructions of the State Government though only a meritorious candidate was required to be selected. The Gram Panchayat, therefore, resolved that the matter be referred to the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat for taking final decision in the matter of appointment of Panchayat Karmi. According to the petitioner, he alone was meritorious having secured first merit order in the select list, therefore, he should have been appointed on the post pursuant to the instructions issued by the State Government on 13-8-2007. The instructions were issued in this respect by the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Justice, on 6-10-2007 but no action was taken. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 1656/2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 15-2-2008 directing that the petitioner should approach the Sub Divisional Officer, Maihar, by making an application under section 85 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Act). It is contended that pursuant to the direction of the Court, the petitioner made an application before the competent authority, i.e. respondent No. 6, but on 26-12-2008 the case was closed saying that the matter is pending consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No. 14704/2007 and since a resolution is passed by the Gram Panchayat, no interference in the same was called for under the provisions of section 85 of the Act. This being so, the petitioner was required to approach this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

(3.) The matter is contested by the respondents and they have filed return. Respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6 have filed their return and contended that since the writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner was disposed of, an application was filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 4. Alleging that the orders passed by this Court were not being complied with, a Contempt Petition No. 595/2008 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 6 and the facts were brought to the notice that the resolution of the Gram Panchayat has already been upheld and the orders have already been passed. It was pointed out by the said authority that since there is an interim stay granted in the Writ Petition No. 14704/2007 and in the said writ petition the present petitioner is also an intervener it was contended that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. However, both the writ petitions were directed to be listed together for analogous hearing.