KEDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal under Section 2 (1) of the MP Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 is made to an order Annexure -A1 dated 6.12.2013 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.13815/2012. By the aforesaid order, the learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Facts in nutshell go to show that an advertisement was issued by the Panchayat in question on 14.2.2006 for appointment of Panchayat Karmi, 26 applications were received. A meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held on 21.2.2006 and the petitioner who had received 42.6% was directed to be appointed as a Panchayat Karmi. Subsequently, an order was also passed on 22.2.2006, whereby he was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi, Jamuna, thereafter, under Section 69 (1) of the MP Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam vide order dated 17.6.2006, he was also appointed as a Panchayat Secretary. Respondent No.6 Shri Rakesh Kumar Vishwakarmac was placed at No.1 in the merit list having been obtained 58.8% but by adopting the majority voting system, petitioner, a less meritorious candidate, who had received 42.6% was appointed.

(3.) Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant argued that against the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, the revision was not maintainable and, therefore, overlooking the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Rajesh Kumar, 2013 2 MPLJ 130 and the judgment in the case of Sagar Machhua Sahkari Samiti Seoni Vs. C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat Seoni & Anr., 2008 2 MPLJ 194, the learned Single Judge has committed an error. It was emphasized by Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel that the revision against the resolution was not maintainable and, therefore, interference made by the Additional Commissioner was not warranted and ignoring all these factors, as the learned Single Judge has interfered in the process of appointment, interference in this appeal is called for.