VEER SINGH GOSH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order-dated 31.7.2010 - Annexure P/1, passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar and the order passed by the Collector, Tikamgarh as contained in Annexure P/9 dated 22.4.2010, in the matter of appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat Barmatal, Janpad Panchayat Jatara, District Tikamgarh, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) FACTS that have come on record indicates that Collector, Tikamgarh vide Annexure P/2 dated 6.11.2007 appointed respondent No.5 Shri Rohit Singh Parmar on the post of Panchayat Karmi so also on the post of Panchayat Secretary. In the order - Annexure P/2 a condition was stipulated that if any criminal case is registered against the employee Shri Rohit Singh Parmar, his services would be terminated. However, after his appointment when it was found that respondent No.5 is implicated in certain criminal cases, the Collector passed the order - Annexure P/3 on 26.11.2007 and cancelled the appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Panchayat Secretary ordered under section 69(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam of 1993'). This order-dated 26.11.2007 - Annexure P/3 was challenged by respondent No.5 by filing a revision before the Additional Commissioner, and the Additional Commissioner vide order-dated 5.7.2008 - Annexure P/4 found that due to involvement of respondent No.5 Shri Rohit Singh Parmar in certain criminal cases, he cannot continue as a Panchayat Secretary and as his termination from the post of Panchayat Secretary was a result of condition Clause (iv) stipulated in the appointment order - Annexure P/2, dismissed the same. Challenging the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner, petitioner preferred a second revision before the Minister of the Department concerned and the Minister also dismissed the same vide Annexure P/5 dated 23.5.2009. Finally, respondent No.5 Shri Rohit Singh Parmar challenged the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Minister before this Court in W.P.No.5844/2009 and the writ petition was also dismissed by this Court vide Annexure P/6 on 22.6.2009.

(3.) BY inviting my attention to a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Leelawati and another Vs. State of MP and others, 2008 (4) MPHT 470, Shri R.K. Samaiya argued that the Collector has no power for reviewing his own action once he had cancelled the appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Panchayat Karmi and Panchayat Secretary. Accordingly, Shri Samaiya on the aforesaid premises prays for interference into the matter and took me through the orders impugned in detail to emphasize his contention.