PAWAN KUMAR DHEEMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. 1. In this intra -Court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 15.3.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3716/2013(S), by which the writ petition filed by the appellant in which challenge was made to the appointment of respondent No.7 on the post of Village Employment Assistant has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that an advertisement was issued on 11.6.2012 for appointment on the post of Village Employment Assistant. Admittedly, the merit list was prepared on 7.8.2012 in which the name of the respondent No.7 was placed at serial No.1. The appellant raised an objection on 9.1.2013 inter alia on the ground that the respondent No.7 is not the resident of village Budhoriya, as his name appears in the voter list of Nagar Panchayat, Raghagorh as well as Village Budhoriya. The Gram Panchayat allowed the objection preferred by the appellant vide order dated 5.2.2013. The aforesaid order was reversed in appeal by the Collector by order dated 9.5.2013. The appellant approached this Court by challenging the said order passed by the Collector, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.3.2016. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the domicile certificate was issued in favour of the respondent No.7 on 30.6.2012, which is subsequent to the issuance of inviting application for recruitment on the post of Village Employment Assistant. Learned counsel for the appellant has also invited our attention to the voter list as on 1.11.2012 in respect of his submission that the name of respondent No.7 is recorded as a voter in the voter list of Nagar Panchayat, Raghogarh. It is further submitted that in the elections which were held in the year 2012, the respondent No.7 had exercised his right of franchise as voter in Nagar Panchayat, Raghogarh, therefore, he was ineligible for appointment on the post in question. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.7 supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of Clause -IV of the guidelines dealing with the appointment of Village Employment Assistant, we find that the essential qualification is that the applicant should be resident of the Gram Panchayat and his name should be recorded as such in the voter list of that Gram Panchayat. Admittedly, the name of the respondent No.7 is recorded in the voter list of Gram Panchayat, Budhoriya. It is also pertinent to mention here that the name of the respondent No.7 was deleted from the voter list of Nagar Panchayat, Raghogarh vide order dated 20.5.2012, i.e., prior to the invitation of application for appointment on the post of Village Employment Assistant. Thus, the respondent No.7 fulfills the criteria laid down in the guidelines, as his name is mentioned in the voter list of Gram Panchayat Budhoriya. Even otherwise, the question whether the respondent No.7 is resident of Village Buhdoriya is a question of fact and finding on this issue has been recorded by the Collector on proper appreciation of material available on record which does not call for any interference. So far as the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the respondent No.7 had participated in the polling which was held in the year 2012 in Nagar Panchayat, Raghogarh is concerned, admittedly, the aforesaid plea was not raised in the writ petition. Therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the new plea for the first time in the appeal. The order passed by learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.