DEVENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the writ petition is listed today for hearing on I.A. No. 6621/2014, for vacating stay, in view of the fact that the jurisdiction of the revisional authority is called in question in the present writ petition and only on this count the writ petition is admitted for final hearing, and an interim stay is granted, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , a selection process was started for appointment on the post of Village Employment Assistant under a Scheme. The Scheme contemplates that after selection, appointment orders are required to be issued. In case anybody is aggrieved by any such appointment, he/she can approach the Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeal. However, under the Scheme no further provisions of filing appeals or revisions are made and it is said that the order passed by the Appellate Authority would be final. Thus, in case anybody was aggrieved by selection, could have approached the competent Appellate Authority that means the District Programme Coordinator (District Collector).

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the Scheme made since there was no prescription of a remedy of revision before the Additional Commissioner and since the Scheme is separately made, the provisions of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, are not made applicable to such a Scheme, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is beyond his jurisdiction and authority. In view of this, it is submitted that the order is liable to be set aside.