Bcrsi ^^-1/^&7 / /- IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATT[SS-4RH_ATBILASPUR PETITEONEft: Writ Petition (S) No.'2>0^*2-of 2008 ^ Dilip Kumar Rai, 5/o ©ulabchandRai, Aged dbout 29 years, R/o Village - ©huTar-a, Tohsil -Manendragarh, District - Koria (C.6.) RESPON&ENTS; ...••' ^y. ^ '..'<VA./ A y>'-" ^ ^^f.^ ^ ' > Sv^b- - ^ ^' .^' ^ c0r ^^i)4 ^^}k^ n.'&'"1' '•^•^" ^c^^y - Versus - ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, ManTrctaya, b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. Collector, Koria, DistricT - Koria (C.©.) 3. Additional Collector, Manendragarh, bistrict - Korja (C.6.) 4. Sub Divisiona! Officer, Manendra9arh, District - Koria (C.6.) 5. Chief Executive Officer. District - Koria (C.6.) 6. Sram Panchayoit, ©hutara, Through its Sarpanch, Janpad Pcuichayat, DisrricT - Korja (C.O.) ^ / ff ^iHfc--1tt..f:~;^ . ., ... ^i^s^^^ •;-«"^^^^5^g: 7. Nand Kishore, S/o Laxman Prasad Rai, R/o Village - ©hutara, Tahsil - Manendragarh, Oistrict - Koria (C.6.) 8. Pawan Singh, S/o Sulab Singh 6ond. 9. Kanwartal, S/o Mohanlal Rai. 10. Sunil Kumar, S/o Ram Narayan Rai 11. Smt. Sunita, W/o,Rajendra Kumar Rai. 12. Ram Keshwar. S/o l-1ari Prasad. 13. Ciinesh Prasad Mishra, 5/o Rambhuwan AAishra. - 14. Uday Kumar, S/o MewalalRai. ^gili^'Ni^^^g ~./<^ ^ l, it [ S.K/ke^^. j S ^l "i.. "~'-t~r~~. .-.C^ // 'V i-iR '(hWa' 15. Bharatli S/o BhegunaTh Balcind. Respondents No.8 to 15 are residents of Village - Musara, Tahsil - Manendra9arh, District - Koria (C.6.) 16. Samaylal, S/o Sobind Singh 6ond, R/o Villa9e - Shutara, Tohsil - Manendragarh, District - Koria (C.G.) ECTIONS ETC. 226/227 OF THE THE NATURE OF OTHER SUITABLE HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 3072 of 2008 Ftetitioner DiUp Kuiaar Ral Versus Respondents State of Chhattagarh & otbers WRH* PETrrON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Honlale Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) A^ Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate witli Shri Malay Shriv^tava, Advocate for the petitioiier. ShriA. V. Shridhar, PaaelLawyer forthe respondents No. 1 to 4. Shn Yashwant Su^h Thakur, Advocate for the respoadent No.5. Shri Paakaj Shrivastava, Advocate fbr fhe respondent No. 6 None for other respondents, despite semce ofnotice. ORDBR (Oralt (Rassed on this 10th Ssiy ofFebruaiy, 2010) Heard. 1. By this petition, fited under Aryclc 226/227 of the Constitutfon of India, the petitioiier chaUcnges fhe legality and vaMdity of tlie order dated 4.6.2008, passed by fhe respondent No.3 in Revenue Case No. 08-A-89/2007-08 (Naiid Kishore Vs. DiHp Kumar & otliera), whereby the revision filed by the respondent No.7, chaBenguig the appointment of the petitioner on fhe post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretaiy, VUlage P&uchayat - Ghutra, was afflowed, holding (hat the r^solution dated 7.2.2W8 waa not ia accordance wlth law. 2. Brieffacts, in nutsheU, are that by order dated 7/8-1-2008 (Annexure P/1) the Chief Executwe OfiGcer, Jaapad Panchayat - Manendragarh directed the Sarpaach of viUage Panchayat Nai Ledri/Ghutra to start proceedings for appoiiitanent of Paachayat Kanm. Accordiagty fhe advertisement was issued on 11.1.2008 (Annexure P/2), invitmg appHcations Irom eBgible candidates for appointraent bn the post of •7 Panchayat Karmi Pursuaat to the advertisement, total II caadMlates, iacluding ttie petitioiier, submttted tlieir applfcations. Ttiereaftcr, the Gram Panchayat ia ite aneetmg dated 7.2.2008 (Annex'ure P/3) passed tlie resolution to appoint fhe petitioner on tKc post of Paachayat Karmi. By letter dated 12.2.2008 (Annexure P/4) the Sarpancli informed fhe Chief Executive Officer about selection offhje petitioner and requested for permissfon to caU the ineetfeg of the Grram Sabha, for approval offhe resolution. On 28.2.2008 (Annexure P/5) fhe Chief Exccutive OflBcer directed fhe Sarpanch to caU meeting of fhe Oram Sabha in accordance wifh the provisions of Scction 6 (1) of fhe Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avain Gram Swaraj Adhiniyain, 1993 (for short the Act, 1993'). 3. On 4.3.2008 (AnnexMTe P/6) fhe Sarpanch requested fhe Sub Divisioiial Officer (Reveaue), Maaeiidr^arh to appoint Presidmg OfBcer for the special Gram. Sabha, which was to be heM on 9.3.2008. Subsequenfty, fhe Sarpaach informed the Chief Executive OfiBcer, Janpad Pancliayat, Manendragarh that the aieeting of the Gram Sabha was to be called on 6.4.2008 and also requested for arrangeiaent of security ineasures aad deputation of an Observer of fhe proceedings. On 31.3.2008 (Aiuaexure P/8) the Sub Divisional OfiBcer (Revenue), Maueiulragarh, Distnct - Koria direeted not to take further proceedings in regard to appoiatmcnt of Panchayat Karmi, until further oiders, as soine proceeding ariamg out of fhe complaiat niade ia regard to appointment of Pauchayat Karmi was pendiag consMeration. Acconlingfy, the Sarpanch issued a notice on 1.4.2008 (Annexure P/9) fhat the meetiB^; of fhe Gram Sabfaa which was to be held on 6.4.2008 was postponed, iintil further orders. .,.-"N6, ^ ^' -"l < -^-'^ -^ ...^^ :,A .y 6. w It is ewident tfaat the respoaadent No.7 ffled a icwision, beartng Revenue Case No. 08-A-89/2007-2008, chaBengmg the resolution dated 7.2.2008, passed by fhe Gram Panchayat Ghutra for appointm.ent of Panchayat Karmi on fhe grouiid that earlier fhe meeting ofthe Gram Rancbayat held on 1.2.2CK58 was postponed for7.2.2008 ia absence &f coram. Smce the iDfomiation for the first mceting dated 1.2.2008 was ^ivcn on 24.1.2008 to onty six panctias, iacludiag thc Sarpaach, the subsequent ineeting dated 7.2.2008, in sequence of thc earlier ineetu^; dated 1.2.2008 was also fflegal for waat ofcoram. No proper intunation of the saeetjztg was given to aU the Paachas and the signature ofthe Ranclias on the resolution was tafcea by adopting ill measziTes. The Additional Coltector, Mancndragaili, DMtrict - Koria by impugned order dated 4.6.2008 (Aiuaexure P/10) aDowed the revision, findmg fhat the proceedings imdertaken by fhe Gaam Paachayat for appoiatment of Panchayat Karmi -vras contrary to fhe provisions of clause 4.4. of the Ranchayat Karmi Scheme dated 12al Septeiaber, 1995 (Annexure R-6/1) ( Por short the Scheme, 1995'), whteh reads as uader: "4.4 WTfQ W^-T TT5( TPI >i»tl<l(t ^t <tl11'<t WCT ^ W»r fiRR ^ Vfi^i f^<i uirif^ 1 Vfl U*ltqd ^ <UI*tl"tl wir VPQ an<Nii TRrf W ftqR ^R d"ft<<tl'( q>r 'qq*T <E>N> 1 S^ d"ftt{41< w wi wftenr ^ ^ ^ift r It was further observcd in the order dated 4.6.2008 that the petitioner had produced tnro certificates of Higher Secondaiy School Certificate E^canunation (10+2) ie. ose fiom the Govfc Raghuraj H^her Sccondaiy School, Sahdol for the year 1997 aad aaother fix>in fhe Govt. MuUlpurpose School, Bflaspur for tbe year 2007, Which creates 4 'WiSS& o ^ suspicion. Accordaq^f, the resolution dated 7.2.2008 was rejectedby fhe impugned ordcr, findmg fhe same as contrary to law and the Qram Paachayat - Grhutra was directed to initiate setection pTocess ia accordance with clai^e 4.4 ofthe Schenie, 1995. Lcamcd coiuisel appearmg for the petittoner submits that the order dated 4.6.2008 (Anaexure P/10), passed by -gie Additioaril Collector, Maoendragarh, District - Koria, is without jurisdlction as no rewision is inaintauiable against resohitlon passed by Gram Ranchayat. To substantiate his submission leamed counsel rety on a decision of a Division Bench ofHigh Court ofMadhya F'radesh in St|gpr Maclihna Sahakwi Samlti, Seonl Vs. CMef Bxecutlve OIBc», Jaapad Pandiayat, Seoai & another1. The impugned order sufiFers fi?om perveisily so far as recording the finriing that the petitioncr had subiiiitted two laarls-sheets. The respoiident No.7 had no locus to challeiige the resolution on the g?ound that no pcoper notice was served upon fhe rcspectiwe Panchas. Moreover, none of thc Paactias have raised objection that they were not properly noticed of fhe meeting. Learaed coui^el appeacmg for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and 5 have subimtted tfaat the respotidents No. 1 to 5 are fbrm.al party. Tfae relief claiiacd by the petitioner is agauist the respondent No.6. Leamed counsel appearing for thc respondent No.6 submits that the nicting ofthe Grain Panchayat was caBed oa 1.2.2008 but for waut of coram. it was postponed to 7.2.2008. On 7.2.2008 the resolutlon was passed in accordance wifh law and the petitioner was selected f&r appoiatment on fhe post of Pandiayat Karmi. None of thc Panchas Iiad raised any objection ia respect ofserwce ofnoticeofthe aieetmg. 2008 (1) MPHT 254 (DB) •efx ^ '7 The pctitioner had funushed oaty one aaark sheet aloag wttti tiis appMcation. 10. Lcamed coiuisel appeanr^ for the respondent No.6/Gram Panchayat furflier subnuts fhat out of 21 ineaibeis, 17 inembers werc present ia the meeting, who have signed fhc minutes of fbe ineetmg and approved fhe appointmeiit ofthe petitioner. 11. I have heard learaed counsd appearing for the parties and patised the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. Tbis Court in Bholaram Verms Vs. The State ofcaihattisgarti & ofhers W.P.NO. 3772 of 2005, which was decided on 23rd Maroh, 2007, has held that it is trfte fhat fhe icsolution or a decision ina Hiceting is not the order wtiich can be given efiTect to. Theae shouU be a proper order pursuant to fhc resolutton for appoiatment to the post of Paachayat Karmi. After resolutioa of Oram Ranchayat aafl Gram Sabha to appoiat Paachayat Kamu, the Sarpaach has to pass an appropriate appointment oider for appointment ofPanchayat Karmi 13. In the present case, it is evident fhat after passaig of thc resolutton dated 7.2.2008, no meetu^; of Gram Sabha could be conveaed, thus no approval could be obtained. The rcvisional aufhority has not recorded any finding ia regard to thc validily of tfac meetu%. However, OB perusal of the pleadmgs it is foimd that the meeting was vaHdly held as out of 21 jneinbers, 17 meinbers had participated m the ineetmg, wifhout aay deinur. 14. Thc findiag reconled in ttie impupied oirier fhat tfae petitioner tas filed two maris-sheets, is contraxy to the recoads. It app^u-s fliat fhe authority below has dxawn thc inference without exainining fhc &cts. It is a case ofthe Pauchayat and on verification also it is found that ^^w'1 ^' •-. ^. ^fff" 15. 16. n. •^ ^ '' (-' there was onty one maris-shcet, which was iiecewed by the Gram Panchayat and accepted for consideration. In view of fhe foregoii^, fhis Court is of fhe coasidercd opiuion that fhe impugaed order dated 4.6.2008 (Annexure P/10) s unsustamable, so far as fhe proceedings offhe Orain Paacfaayat dated 7.2.2008 is concemed. Siace no flaw was, found by the autliiority betow in the proceedit^s of tfae Gram Panchayat, fhe rejection of fhe resolution dated 7.2.2008, finding fhc same as iBegal, was not just and proper. For fhe reasons stated herein above, fhe writ petition is aUowed. The itnpugncd order dated 4.6.2008 (Aanexure P/10) is set aaide. No onicr asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Thntair