DINESH GIRI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Chambal Division Morena, who in turn set aside the order passed by the SDO, Vijaypur, District Sheopur on 09.07.2013 appointing the petitioner as a Pujari of Kankali Mandir situated at village Kinjari in place of his father-in-law Parampuri S/o Raghunathpuri.

(2.) Petitioner's contention is that private respondent No. 5 had challenged the order of SDO before the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector had maintained the order of SDO vide its order dt.06.04.2015. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 had challenged the order of Additional Collector before the Additional Commissioner, who vide the impugned order has set aside the appointment order of the petitioner. Petitioner's contention is that the appointment order in favour of the petitioner was issued by the SDO Vijaypur on the basis of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat Kinjari, as is contained in Annexure P/3 and since this resolution of Gram Panchayat was not challenged, therefore, the order of SDO could not have been challenged by the respondent No. 5 and this fact has not been considered by the Additional Commissioner. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from infirmity.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarjeet Singh and others v. Devi Ratan and others as reported in (2010) 1 SCC 417 , wherein he has drawn further attention of this court to para 28 of the judgment mentioning therein principle of law laid down in the case of P. Chitharanja Menon v. A. Balakrishnan as reported in (1977) 3 SCC 255 . In this case, the ratio is that the seniority, which is consequential to the promotions could not be challenged without challenging the promotions. Challenging the consequential order without challenging the basic order is not permissible. Similarly, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal (D) by L.Rs. v. Ugrasen (D) by L.Rs. and others as reported in AIR 2010 SC 2210 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to para 38 of the aforesaid judgment wherein the dispute was in regard to allotment of a plot and the court held that since Ugrasen had not sought any relief for making the allotment in his favour, but had only sought a limited relief of quashment of allotment made in favour of Manoharlal, therefore, the High Court was wrong in issuing directions to make the allotment in favour of Ugrasen. That means that if a relief has not been sought, then it can not be granted by the court on its own is the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal (supra).