NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by the respondent No.2 by which while suspending the resolution of Gram Panchayat, Padariya, Block Kundam, District Jabalpur, it is directed that the respondent No.4 be appointed and notified as Panchayat Karmi and Secretary of the above said Gram Panchayat. Such order has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 85(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (herein after referred to as 'Act').

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that certain applications were invited for appointment of Panchayat Karmi by the Gram Panchayat, Padariya. The petitioner, who was fully qualified, made an application along with requisite documents and experience certificate. The Gram Panchayat passed a resolution and decided to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi. Pursuant to the said resolution, order of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner on 31.08.2007. The said order was not challenged by the respondent No.4 in appropriate manner as prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Appeal & Revision Rules, 1995 (herein after referred to as 'Rules'). On the other hand, complaint was made before the Sub Divisional Officer against the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. The said authority instead of granting an opportunity of hearing, passed the order impugned directing that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat is suspended. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was directed to issue an order of appointment in respect of respondent No.4. The matter was directed to be referred to the Collector, Jabalpur, for approval of the order of suspension as provided under Section 85(2) of the Act. Since the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing, he was required to file this writ petition.

(3.) While entertaining the writ petition, this Court has granted stay of the order impugned in so far as it relates to direction for appointment of respondent No.4 but the suspension of the resolution was not stayed. As a result, the petitioner has not been appointed till now. It is contended that since the order of the Sub Divisional Officer is not affirmed by the Collector within the prescribed period as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 85 of the Act, the order is nonest in the eye of law and petitioner is entitled to continue on the post on which he was appointed.