GOPAL SINGH GURJAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present case, admittedly the selection process started before commencement of new rules, namely, Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 (For short "2011 Rules"). The petitioner was found to be No. 2 in merit below Kumari Sadhna Goswami. Later on, Ku. Sadhana Goswami submitted her affidavit and decided to forego the said appointment. Thus, a recommendation was made by Gram Panchayat for appointment of the petitioner. The Sarpanch issued an order on 03.08.2011 (Annexure P-6), whereby the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi. However, the resolution of Gram Panchayat was not entertained and rejected by the respondents by note-sheet dated 09.12.2011. It is rejected on the ground that 2011 Rules aforesaid came into being w.e.f. 29.03.2011 and, therefore, the Sarpanch had no authority, jurisdiction and competence to appoint the petitioner and in view of 2011 Rules, petitioner has no right to claim appointment.

(2.) SHRI R.B.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a singular contention that as per Rule 11 of 2011 Rules, the actions duly taken earlier in view of the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995/guidelines has not come to an end and are required to be saved and, therefore, petitioner cannot be deprived from the fruits of the selection and recommendation of the Gram Panchayat.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.