MANOJ KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the final disposal of W.P. No. 12970/2007 and W.P. No. 87/2008, as the controversy raised therein are interlinked and, therefore, were heard analogously.

(2.) CHALLENGE in W.P. No. 12970/2007 is to an advertisement dated 30.8.2007 issued by the Collector, Tikamgarh, inviting applications for appointment of Panchayat Karmi; Gram Panchayat Sendri, Janpad Panchayat Niwari, District Tikamgarh, on the anvil that the same being in excess of its power under section 86 (2) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (referred to as Act of 1993).

(3.) IN W.P. No. 87/2008, the petitioner was appointed in pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.8.2007, which is under challenge in W.P. No. 12970/2007. The said appointment was subject to petitioner fulfilling the terms of appointment stipulated in the appointment letter dated 26.11.2007, Annexure P-1, viz., that he is not related to any of the office bearer of Panchayat, domicile of Gram Panchayat, no criminal case is registered, minimum age as on 1.7.2007 must be 18 years and should produce original certificate of Higher Secondary (Class XI) or Matric (10 + 2) of Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal or of other recognized Board. The petitioner was called upon to furnish his original certificate regarding eligibility but since he failed to do so, his appointment was cancelled. In respect of the certificates produced by the petitioner from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Uttar Pradesh, there are claims and counter claims. The petitioner asserts that the certificate produced by him is genuine; whereas the intervener has filed the letter dated 18.1.2008 by the Head Master Christian Inter College, Jhansi (U.P.), obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein it is revealed that, the petitioner did not appear in the examination held in the year 1991. Be that as it may, since the issue regarding genuineness of certificate is being enquired upon by the office of District Panchayat and Social Justice, Tikamgarh, as is evident from letter dated 21.5.2008, this Court refrain from expressing any opinion thereon.