KEDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution assails the order of Additional Commissioner, Gwalior passed in case No 14/10 -11/Appeal dated 31.01.2012. The said authority by impugned order allowed the appeal of respondent No. 6 herein.

(2.) THE controversy involved in the present case is in a narrow compass. An advertisement was issued pursuant to order of State Government dated 25.06.2007 to recruit Panchayat Karmis in Gram Panchayat Dabka. Advertise was issued for the purpose of inviting candidature. However, the recruitment process was not found to be inconsonance with the direction of State Government. Accordingly, by order dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P/2) the Collector set aside the recruitment process and directed for taking action in consonance with Section 86(2) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. In obedience of this order of Collector, another advertisement Annexure P/3 dated 26.12.2007 was issued by the concerned Janpad Panchayat. Respondent No. 6 herein submitted his candidature pursuant to this advertisement dated 26.12.2007. The Collector, by order dated 03.04.2008 directed the Janpad Panchayat to issue fresh advertisement within three days. In obedience of this order, the advertisement Annexure P/5 dated 09/11.06.2008 was issued. Present petitioner submitted his candidature pursuant to this fresh advertisement. However, respondent No. 6, admittedly, did not submit candidature pursuant to this advertisement. The respondent No. 6 filed case No. 149/2008 -09/Appeal before Additional Commissioner assailing action of respondents in not considering him because he did not submit his candidature pursuant to subsequent advertisement. The said authority by order dated 24th June, 2009, rejected the appeal. Thereafter respondent No. 6 filed WP No. 2756/2009 before this Court, which was decided on 14.09.2010. This order of Writ Court was assailed by present petitioner in WA No. 491/2010 which was decided on 03.10.2011. The Division Bench directed the competent authority to decide the matter afresh. Authority was directed to decide the effect of not making an application by the appellant Ravindra Singh pursuant to subsequent advertisement. In turn, appellate authority passed the impugned order dated 31.01.12 and opined that there was no direction by the Office of the Collector that the candidature of respondent No. 6 submitted pursuant to earlier advertisement shall not be included. A combined list needs to be prepared by considering the respondent No. 6 who had submitted candidature pursuant to earlier advertisement dated 26.12.2007.

(3.) THE stand of Shri Ankur Mody is that the earlier candidature submitted pursuant to advertisement dated 26.12.2007 cannot be considered, whereas Shri Praveen Newaskar and Shri J.P. Kushwaha supported the order impugned