SHAHINA PRAVEEN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the writ Petitions, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 22.9.1998 (Annexure P/5) whereby, the Collector in purported exercise of its power under Section 85 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act has cancelled the appointment of the petitioners as Shiksha Kanni, Grade III. Petitioners further pray for quashing of the order dated 28.9.1998 (Annexure P/6) of the Commissioner whereby, it has confirmed the aforesaid order of the Collector dated 22.9.1998.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners in pursuance of the advertisement for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi, Gr. III applied for the same. Petitioners were called for interview and they appeared before the Selection Committee. A list of selected candidates was published which included the petitioners and thereafter appointment letters were issued in their favour. Thereafter, they joined their respective schools in which they were posted. Complaint was received by the Collector that the appointments of the Shiksha Karmis; Grade III have been done illegally and without following the procedure prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. An enquiry was made and the Collector found that subject experts were not called for the interview and in place of the members of the Selection Committee, their nominees were representing them in the Selection Committee. He further found that some of the members of the Selection Committee were present in the meeting of the Selection Committee at the time when their relations appeared for interview, Collector further found that reservation roster was not followed and more than reserved seats have been filled -up and appointment letters issued. It also came to the notice of the Collector that persons who have secured more marks and placed higher in the merit list, were not called for interview and many of the candidates whose names ought to have been included in the merit list, were not included. In conclusion, the Collector found that the entire selection has been made in the teeth of the: provisions of M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules. 1997, hereinafter referred to as the 'Recruitment Rules' and accordingly in exercise of its power under Section 85(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 cancelled the entire selection by the impugned order dated 22.9.1998. The order of the Collector has been confirmed by the commissioner by the impugned order dt. 28.9.1998.

(3.) SHRI V.K. Shukla, G.A. however, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that Rule 12 of the Recruitment Rules provides for appeal against the order passed under the Recruitment Rules in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and not withstanding the fact that the Collector has stated that he has exercised the power under Section 85 of the Act but infact, he has exercised his appellate power under the Recruitment Rules itself. According to Shri Shukla, wrong mentioning of a provision in an order itself shall not vitiate the order.