VIJAY KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was selected to the post of TGT, on anvil, of his belonging, to, a BPL family. The enlistment, of the petitioner in the BPL family, was made in pursuance,to a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat concerned. However, the enlistment of the petitioner in the BPL family, was, challenged by one Geeta Devi, and, the said challenge was subsequently abandoned, and, thereafter the apposite challenge was carried forward by one Kanhiya Lal Sharma, on, the apposite permission being granted. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sarkaghat, upon, the afore challenge, being made, by one Geeta Devi hence, through, Annexure P-2 made a direction to the Gram Panchayat concerned, to, reconsider the inclusion/deletion of the petitioner, in the list of BPL families. The order made under Annexure P-2, was challenged by one Kanhiya Lal Sharma before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, and, through Annexure P-4 the latter made an order of remand, upon, the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil), Sarkaghat, for enabling the latter, to, after rehearing the contesting litigants, make a fresh decision in accordance with law. Subsequent thereto the remanding authority, under, Annexure P-5, upheld the challenge, vis-a-vis, the the enlistment, of the petitioner in the BPL family. The order made, under Annexure P-5 was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, and thereon the impugned order was rendered.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended with much vigor before this Court, that, the guidelines appertaining, vis-a-vis, the challenge, to, the apposite enlistment in the BPL families, in Clause (v) thereof, prescribing rather a period of one month for a challenge being cast, (a) whereas apparently the afore challenge, being made beyond the period, of one month, (b) therefore, all the challenges made by one Geeta Devi, vis-a-vis, the entitlement, of the petitioner, for, enlistment in the BPL family, being, grossly time barred, and, with no compatible clause, being borne in the relevant guidelines, appertaining to condonation, of, period of delay, thereupon, all the orders were made, on a time barred motion, and, hence they are amenable for being scuttled.

(3.) However, the vigor of the afore submission, is, tentatively eroded by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, in order borne in Annexure P-4, making allusion to certain instructions issued, on 8.4.2011 wherethrough, no period of time is prescribed for a challenge, being made to the relevant/apposite enlistment of the persons concerned. Since the afore instructions, were, issued in the year 2011, and, the challenges were made subsequent thereto, hence the challenges cannot be construed, to be suffering, from any aura of invalidity. However in making the afore submission the learned counsel for the respondent, has remained, grossly unmindful to the fact, that, the relevant guidelines, alluded to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, (a) and theirs rather carrying the afore clause, prescribing a rigid period of one month, for a challenge being reared both, before the initial authority, and, before the appellate authority concerned, rather hence subsequent thereto, standing brought into force, in the year 2013 and (b) when thereafter no notification has been placed, on record by the respondents concerned, qua, the afore period of limitation, standing both whittled down or relaxed, under, a notification alike the one issued, in, the year 2011, (c) thereupon, the challenge made, to the making of Annexure P-2 by one Kanhiya Lal Sharma, before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, and also a challenge made on 5.4.2013 hence, are, obviously challenged beyond the period of one month, or, are outside the period of limitation prescribed in the governing thereto guidelines, as, embodied in Annexure P-7. Conspicuously when it came into force, in the year 2013. Consequently, the order impugned is declared, to be bad, in law, and, is quashed, and, set aside accordingly, and, consequent effect, thereof is that the impugned decision also looses its validity, rather, validity is acquired by Annexure P-2, and, hence the Gram Sabha concerned is directed, to, in consonance with paragraph 9 of the verdict borne in Annexure P-2, hence within four weeks, make a fresh decision, vis-a-vis, the inclusion and deletion of the petitioner herein, in, the BPL family concerned.