JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed under Section 2(1)M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,2005, assailing the order dated 10.04.2012 in W.P no.3507/2010(S) by which writ petition preferred by the appellant was allowed and the learned Single Judge directed Gram Panchayat Varud,Katangi,Balaghat to appoint Panchayat Karmi on the basis of the merit list prepared in the year 2002 by adhering to the policy of the State Government as well as the law laid down in the case of Suresh v Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Barwani & others; 2011(4)M,P.L.J.717).

(2.) THIS order has been assailed by the appellant on following grounds (1)appellant herein challenged the appointment of respondent no. 5 dated 30.1.2002. and the respondent no 6 had not challenged the said order so he was not entitled to be appointed on the basis of merit list prepared in the year 2002 and (2) that respondent no 6, who was sleeping over his right could not have been allowed relief by the learned Single Judge. The Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no 6 supported the order.

(3.) TO appreciate the aforesaid contention, it would be appropriate if one fact is stated. The respondent no. 6,, who was more meritorious in comparison to appellant and respondent no.5, was not extended appointment though he was first in the merit list prepared in the 2002.The reason of respondent no. 6, for not challenging the aforesaid order before the SDO has been explained before us that because of financial constraint, he could not challenge the order. He however, preferred some objections before the SDO and before the Collector in second round but his objections were turned down. The fact remains that he was more meritorious in comparison to appellant and also respondent no 5 and he was at serial no.1 in the merit list prepared in the 2002. In the case of Suresh (Supra), a Division Bench considering the similar controversy held that the appointment of Panchayat Karmi is to be made on the basis of merit. The learned Single Judge after considering the entire fact of the case found that it would be appropriate if the appointment is made on the basis of merit list prepared in the year 2002. The Learned Single Judge has done justice in the matter and has rightly directed the Panchayat to appoint Panchayat Karmi on the basis of merit list. As substantial Justice has been done in the matter so no interference is required in this appeal. So far as objection of the appellant that respondent no. 6 had not preferred any appeal against the appointment of respondent no.5 and was sleeping over his right is concerned, the matter remains sub-judice before the SDO and thereafter up to this Court. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction, if has done justice in the facts of the case and has issued the aforesaid direction then merely by not preferring appeal will not jeopardize his right and interest.