RAJ KUMAR KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2006 passed in Case No.23/Appeal/2005-2006 by the respondent No.6, the Sub Divisional Officer and Prescribed Authority, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(2.) It is contended that a process of recruitment of Panchayat Karmi was initiated by the concerned Gram Panchayat by issuing the advertisement. The applications were made by the petitioner and five other persons. It was found that out of six in total, four candidates were related to the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and, therefore their applications were not to be considered. Out of the two candidates, the petitioner was selected and the order of his appointment as Panchayat Karmi was issued, pursuant to which he gave his joining and thereafter was declared as the Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat by the Collector, Tikamgarh, in exercise of powers under Section 69(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (herein after referred to as 'Act'). The appeal was preferred by respondents No.8 to 11 against the said appointment of the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer and in fact instead of challenging the order of appointment of the petitioner, the resolution of the Gram Panchayat was sought to be challenged. The said resolution was not to be challenged in such a manner and, therefore, such an appeal was not maintainable. The appeal was liable to be dismissed but instead of dismissing the appeal, the same was allowed and the order of appointment of the petitioner was sought to be cancelled by setting aside the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. It is contended that such power was not conferred on the Sub Divisional Officer and as such the order was nonest in the eye of law. Only on the basis of such an order, the petitioner was not to be terminated and, therefore, the writ petition was required to be filed.

(3.) This Court has entertained the writ petition and has granted an interim stay to the petitioner on 10.05.2006 and notices were issued to the respondents. After service of the notice, the respondents have filed return. Specific return has been filed by the respondents No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 supporting the action of the Sub Divisional Officer.