JALAM SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER, INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 23/5/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore by which the Revision Petition preferred by respondent No.5 has been allowed, meaning thereby, respondent No.5 has been appointed to the post of Panchayat Karmi.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Panchayat Karmi on 31/3/2006 and the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 submitted their applications. It has been further stated that a merit list was prepared by the Gram Panchayat and the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl.No. 1 of the Merit List. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the merit list (Annexure P/5 page 22) and the same establishes that the petitioner is the most meritorious candidate. The aforesaid merit list has not been disputed by the either side. In the present case, the contention of the petitioner is that the appointment in question was done in consonance with the policy framed by the State Government dated 27/1/2006 and the procedure prescribed under the policy dated 27/1/06 establishes that appointments are to be done keeping in view the merit of a candidate. It has been stated that the merit list was rightly prepared in the matter, however, an order was issued by the Collector on 8/5/2006 appointing respondent No.5 who was a less meritorious candidate to the post of Panchayat Karmi. It has been further stated that the present petitioner being aggrieved by appointment of respondent No.5 came up before this Court and this court in Writ Petition No. 4673/2006 has disposed of the Writ Petition with a liberty to the present petitioner to submit a representation to the Collector enabling the Collector to decide the dispute and later on, as directed by this Court, vide order dated 26/3/2009, the Collector has passed an order dated 31/10/2009 holding the petitioner to be more meritorious and to be entitled for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi. The further contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 being aggrieved by the order of the Collector dated 31/10/2009, came up before this Court and this court in Writ Petition No. 8673 / 2009, vide order dated 4/12/09 has disposed of the Writ Petition with liberty to respondent No.5 to approach the Commissioner by filing a revision petition. The Commissioner has later on decided the revision preferred by respondent No.5 and has set aside the order passed by the Collector. The Commissioner has held that respondent No.5, as he was having an additional qualification ie., Diploma in Computer was rightly appointed vide order dated 8/5/2006. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner dated 23/5/2011. His contention is that he being more meritorious, he is entitled for appointment as appointment was done in consonance with the provisions as contained under the policy dated 27/1/2006.

(3.) THE chronological details of the case, as they are not in dispute, are not being repeated. In the present case, the first policy issued by the State Government which is on record as Annexure P/1, was issued on 27/1/06. The aforesaid policy / executive instructions makes it very clear that appointment was required to be done on the basis of merit. The subsequent Circular was issued on 13/8/07.