LALLU KOL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has directed this appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeet) Ko Appeal), adhiniyam 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 25. 9. 08 passed by learned single Bench in W. P. No. 14999/07 dismissing his writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant, herein approached to this court with the aforesaid Writ Petition contending that he being permanent resident of Gram Panchyat Amiliyia, Tahsil Maihar, District Satna is belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Category while the respondent no. 4 being a practicing Lawyer of the Civil Court, Maihar belongs to general category. On inviting applications by the respondent no. 3 the Gram Panchyat Amilyia for appointment of Panchyat Karmi under the Scheme of Panchayat Karmi Yojana, hereinafter referred as "the Scheme", twelve candidates including the appellant and respondent no. 4 submitted their respective applications. According to the aforesaid Scheme the requisite qualifications for the aforesaid appointment are prescribed that a candidate should be passed 10th standard in the 10+2 System with the minimum age of 18 years. He must be local resident of such Gram panchyat and having sufficient time to carry out the prescribed work and while making selection amongst the candidates, the preference will be given to the candidates belonging to S. C. , S. T. O. B. C. , and Woman category. As per the provision of the aforesaid Scheme the respondent no. 3 Gram Panchyat in its meeting dated 28. 1. 07 passed a resolution (Annexure P-1 with the writ petition)whereby the name of respondent no. 4 was resolved to be appointed as Panchyat karmi. In pursuance of it, the respondent no. 2 - Collector by virtue of Section 69 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993, in short "the Adhiniyam", notified the name of the respondent no. 4 as a Secretary of such Gram Panchyat, vide order dated 17. 9. 07, (Annexure P-2 with the Writ Petition ). Such resolution and notification were challenged by way of aforesaid writ petition on the ground interalia that the selection of the respondent no. 4 being contrary to Section 69 of the Adhiniyam was illegal and bad. As he could not hold the charge of such post because of his near relative brother Shri Rajendra prasad Tiwari was existing Panch of such Panchyat and by virtue of second proviso of such Section (1) of said Section 69 of the Adhiniyam the respondent no. 4 could not be selected. The other grounds are that the appointment process has not been carried out by the respondent no. 3 within thirty days from the date of issuance of letter by the competent authority, vide order dated 10. 7. 07 (Annexure P-6 with the writ petition ). As such after 30 days the Gram Panchyat became functus officio and did not have any authority to appoint the Panchyat karmi. In such situation the power to appoint Panchyat Karmi was with the prescribed authority under Section 86 of the Adhiniyam. Besides this, the appointment of the respondent no. 4 was also challenged stating that the appellant being member of Scheduled Tribe Category was entitled to be given priority preference under the Scheme. Such provisions are violated in such appointment. It is further pleaded that inspite of giving representation no action was taken by the authorities. With these grounds the appellant has prayed to quash the aforesaid resolution dated 21. 8. 07 and the notification dated 17. 9. 07 with further prayer for appropriate direction to the authorities to appoint him on such post.

(3.) IN the return of respondent no. 1 and 2 denying the allegations of the petition made against them the aforesaid appointment of respondent no. 4 on the post of panchyat Karmi and his notification as Secretary of Gram Panchyat Amiliyia are justified. It is also stated that such appointment is made in accordance with the scheme, circular and guidelines issued by the State Government. The claim of the appellant is stated to be misconceived.