RAMNIWAS Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India challenging the order dated 14-6-2007 of appointment of respondent No. 4 as Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat Chandrapura, and the procedure followed in selection has also been questioned.

(2.) IT is the precise grievance of petitioner that power to appoint the panchayat Karmi is vested with Gram Panchayat and action taken by the respondents No. 2 and 3 to appoint respondent No. 4 as Panchayat Karmi is against the provisions of Panchayat Act. It is further said that procedure followed in the selection by respondent No. 3, and approved by respondent No. 2 is arbitrary and also against the provisions of the Act, however, it is liable to be quashed.

(3.) MR. Abhishekh Tugnawat, Advocate has drawn my attention to the order impugned Annexure-P/1 dated 14-6-2007 by which respondent No. 4 was appointed as Panchayat Karmi, in the order it is mentioned that in exercise of power under section 86 (2) M. P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter it be referred as Panchayat Act) one Devilal s/o Hemraj Gayari (respondent No. 4) is appointed as part time Panchayat Karmi on payment of honorarium. Counsel for petitioner submits that no such power is vested with the chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat or the Collector under subsection (1)or (2) of section 86 of Panchayat Act, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further urged that respondent No. 4 has been appointed by giving undue marks arbitrarily, therefore, entire process of selection is liable to be quashed.