RAHUL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 23/08/2010, passed by the respondent no. 3, Collector Sidhi, by which he has set -aside the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Secretary.

(2.) THE facts of the case reveal that in the year 2006, the Collector, Sidhi has directed the Gram Panchayat in exercise of powers conferred under Section 86(1) of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 to fill up the post of Panchayat Karmi (Sachiv). The Gram Panchayat has issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Panchayat Karmi on 13/03/2006 and a resolution was passed on 28/03/2006 by majority of votes to appoint the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi. By an order dated 04/01/2006 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 69(1) of the Act 1993, the petitioner was also notified as Secretary. The appointment of the petitioner was challenged by one Kemalbhan Prajapati before the SDO and the appeal of Kemalbhan was dismissed on 10/04/2007, against which a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, the same was also dismissed on 06/06/2007. A writ petition was also preferred in the matter i.e. W.P. No. 15037/2007 and this court has disposed of the same with a liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the State Government. The petitioner has finally approach State Government and the respondent no. 2 Minister has directed the Collector to re -open the matter and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The respondent Collector after hearing parties at length has passed an order and has also directed the Gram Panchayat to issue appointment order in favour of the respondent no. 9 Smt. Sunita Shukla. The reasons assigned by the Collector is that the respondent no. 9 was a most meritorious candidate and in the light of the circular issued by the State Government dated 27/01/2006 selection could not have been done on the basis of majority of votes.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge in the aforesaid case has taken into account the circular dated 27/01/2006 and 13/08/2007. In the present case the appointment of the petitioner was done by the Gram Panchayat on the basis of direction issue by the Collector under Section 86(1) of the Act, 1993 and the appointment was certainly not done as per the provisions contained under Section 86(2). The circular dated 27/01/2006 under the second part deals with appointment done in consonance with Section 86(2) of the Act, 1993 and therefore, in the light of the judgment delivered by this Court wherein in similar circumstances the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of majority of votes has been upheld, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the appointment of the petitioner and therefore, the order passed by the Collector in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Kalpnath Mishra (supra) deserves to be set -aside.