ASHOK KUMAR KAURAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 11-9-1996 (Annexure P-7) of the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Services, Narsinghpur, by which he has directed the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Nargi, to appoint Panchayat Karmi in the said Gram Panchayat after inviting applications in this behalf and it has been clarified that the removed Secretary of the Panchayat viz. , Laxman Pd. Sharma (respondent No. 8) would also be free to make such an application. By amendment in the petition, the petitioner has also challenged the appointment of respondent No. 8 by order dated 14-8-1997 [annexure 11 (D) passed by the Up-Sarpanch of the said Gram Partchayat, by which the respondent No. 8 has been appointed as Panchayat-Karmi-cum-Secretary of the said Panchayat.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in short, is that by Annexure P-l, the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Services, (respondent No. 5), under the instructions of the Collector, Narsinghpur, directed Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Nargi (respondent No. 6) that the post of Secretary be treated as vacant in the said Panchayat and steps should be taken in accordance with the Panchayat Karmi Yojna to fill up this vacancy. In pursuance of the said direction of the Collector to the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Services, the Gram Panchayat considered the applications of four persons in its meeting dated 17-8-1998 and the petitioner was selected on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by him in Matriculation Examination and fulfilment of the qualifications as per the eligibility criteria laid down. The petitioner has filed copy of the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat as Annexure P-2. In pursuance of the said proceedings, appointment order dated 17-8-1996 (Annexure P-3) was issued, by which by virtue of appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi, he was also appointed as a Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner has placed on record the documents evidencing his having joined on the said post and taking over charge, but later by the impugned order Annexure P-7 dated 11-9-1996, the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Services, directed that the post be treated as vacant in pursuance of the order dated 4-7-1996 (Annexure P-l) and steps be taken to fill up the post in accordance with the scheme. The petitioner contends that this communication has been sent by the Deputy Director apparently in ignorance of the fact that the post already stood filled up by the appointment of the petitioner, which was duly communicated to the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Services, of which the acknowledgment has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. The petitioner further submits that against the said order/ communication, the petitioner filed an appeal Annexure P-9 to the Collector and Annexure P-10 to the Commissioner, Jabalpur, as it was not clear as to who would be the appellate authority against the said order Annexure P-7 since the order had been passed under the directions of the Collector. Since the appeal of the petitioner was not decided either by the Collector or the Commissioner and no steps were taken in connection therewith, the petitioner filed this petition.

(3.) DURING the pendency of this petition there were other developments and one Ganesh Prasad Mehra was appointed on the post of Secretary of the respondent No. 6 Gram Panchayat Nargi, but later withdrawn. Thereafter, by Annexure P-11 (A) one Jagdish Awasthy was placed in charge of the Gram Panchayat, with the result, the Gram Panchayat by resolution dated 13-8-1997 postponed selection of a new Panchayat Karmi/secretary, which was earlier scheduled on 14-8-1997. However, the Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat then issued another order Annexure P-ll (D) dated 14-8-1997, by which he appointed respondent No. 8 Laxman Sharma on the post of Panchayat Karmi/secretary in reference to the same order of the Collector. The petitioner has, therefore, by amendment, challenged the order Annexure P- 11 (D) on the ground that Laxman Sharma (respondent No. 8) firstly could not have been appointed in the manner it has been done and secondly, the Up- Sarpanch, while the Sarpanch was holding the Office, had no authority to make any appointment. Respondents 1 to 5 and 7 have filed their return in which they have pointed out that the respondent No. 8 Laxman Sharma was working as Panchayat Secretary in the respondent No. 6 Gram Panchayat, but he was removed from the post and on the post becoming vacant, letter Annexure P-l was issued directing respondent No. 6 to take steps to fill up the same. While not disputing that the respondent No. 6 appointed the petitioner, these respondents have asserted that the removed Secretary Laxman Sharma had raised dispute about his removal and the Collector, therefore directed that his candidature be also considered while considering fresh appointment. The respondent have further averred that under Section 69 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the guidelines issued by the Government (Annexure P-12), appointment of Panchayat Karmi has got to be notified by the Competent Authority and then only the appointment becomes valid. The respondents have further averred that since the post was vacant, the appointment of Ganesh Prasad Mehra could be made and they have, thus, denied the claim of the petitioner to any relief. The Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 6) has also filed a return and the respondent No. 8, although has not filed any reply, has opposed the petition on the facts referred to in the return of the other respondents.