MUKESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition and the Petitions W.P. No. 6076/1998 (Sanjay Kumar Jain v. State of M.P. and ors.), 6008/1998 (Ravishankar Bajpai and am. v. State of M.P. and ors.) and 146/99 (Devendra Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and ors.) challenge the order dated 1.12.1998 passed by the Collector, District Raisen, as appellate authority under the M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, in case No. 51/Appeal/Cole./97 -98, by which the Collector has set aside the selection of 28 candidates for the posts of Shiksha Karmis made by the Janpad Panchayat, Silwani, and has directed the said Panchayat to revise the list by excluding the names of these candidates and including the other eligible persons in accordance with the Roster for reservation, with a further direction to include 14 persons as mentioned in his order in the waiting list for being absorbed on posts becoming available. The consequent cancellation of appointments by Janpad Panchayat has also been challenged. All these petitions are, therefore, being decided by this common order.

(2.) THE State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (2) of Section 53, sub -section (1) of section 70 read with sub -section (1) of Section 95 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "Panchayat Adhiniyam") has made the Rules called the "M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997". Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for Method of Selection and Recruitment while Rule 8 deals with Promotion. Shiksha Karmis have been classified into three categories, Grade I, II and III as per Schedule I appended to the Rules. Rule 9 provides for the Discipline and Control and lays down that the Shiksha Karmis shall be under the administrative control of Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, as the case may be, while Rule 10 provides for termination of service by a month's notice by the appointing authority in the case of the Shiksha Karmi who is not in permanent service. Rule 12 provides that Appeal against the order passed under these rules may be made as per provisions of the Adhiniyam. Section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam provides that an appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings of a Panchayat and other authorities under that Act, shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. The authorities and the manner have been prescribed by the "M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and the Collector has been designated as the appellate authority in the case of orders passed by Janpad Panchayat.

(3.) THE Collector found that 28 candidates as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, had obtained less marks than the last candidate eligible for selection as per merit but had still been appointed. The record also indicated that the hundred point roster had not been followed in making reservation in favour of the candidates belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and O.B.C. as required under Rule 5(4) of the Shiksha Karmis Rules and the select list was prepared separately for different categories with the result, the eligible candidates of the other categories were left out and candidates with lesser marks were appointed. The Collector also observed that in the general category only candidates with 62.42%) or above marks could have been selected while the 28 candidates had obtained marks less than the said percentage of marks. He also prepared a list of 14 candidates to be kept in the waiting list as per the rules, in which the petitioner in WP No. 146/99 has been included at Serial No :) on the basis of 61.12 percent marks obtained by him.