MORDHVAJ Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the interim order dated 5-10-2009 passed by the competent authority in the revision preferred under Rule 5 of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(2.) Facts leading to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner along with other candidates submitted applications for the post of Panchayat Karmi. The Gram Panchayat in its meeting held on 13-8-2007, resolve to appoint the petitioner, however, later on the Gram Panchayat recommended the name of respondent No. 5 for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi vide Annexure P/5 dated 22-10-2007. The petitioner thereupon challenged the aforesaid resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 12-6-2008. The aforesaid order was upheld in appeal by the Collector. The respondent No. 5, vide order dated 26-8-2008 was notified on the post of Panchayat Secretary by the Collector under section 69(1) of the Act. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 7-1-2009 has set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Collector and remanded the case to Gram Panchayat for making a fresh appointment in accordance with the instructions which were issued by the State Government on 13-8-2007 for recruitment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. Admittedly, against the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 5, filed the Writ Petition No. 708/2009. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 4-2-2009 (Annexure P-10) upheld the order of the Commissioner dated 7-1-2009. However, it appears that subsequently the respondent No. 5, filed a revision before the Minister, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department against the order of the Commissioner in which the interim order dated 5-10-2009 was passed which is the subject-matter of challenge in this instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Division Bench has upheld the validity of the order dated 7-1-2009 passed by the Commissioner, the revision preferred by the respondent No. 5, amounts to misuse to process of law. It is further been submitted that the respondent No. 5, while suppressing the factum of dismissal of the writ petition preferred by him filed a revision before the Minister, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department. It is further been submitted that the proceedings pending before the Minister, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department under Rule 5 of the Rules are liable to be quashed.