. ^ £EB=TaB. OESB CBVPS 9-S GHHSFTISSARH j BIIASPtR m»SW^SBS HO.A93:7-.o?";2oo5 jPEI'sa'XONER RgSEOSBEH'BS •lii—di11'iiniiirniiiwi uiiirii»iiiftir /" -/*. A^...-"^. /€^€^ /d:V1^^' ^^•^E '^•^^yy .-* . Ju*?h ^^**· Bh«TOBeshwar3; S©n®fBalpalSrani Sabu^1' aged' alseu^;27-S'earaSs ^ wsrkiag as a Panehayat KBnai, cestSsaSs ©£vtllase i BufeJEpall^ Bieek s Ba»»a, Tefesi.1 : Basna, DJ.sfericfe t Mahasanund ( e,<^ ) VERSBS ^. Stste ef ehba'fefel.s^arh •fcteCTyugh fehe Seeretary? PaBehayat & SBeiat-WelfaEe Bepartmeitfcy' D.K,S. BhaVcBt|! Ra3tpurSU-t°3 The ^Addlfelanal e®lleebe2?y Bl.st;riciti s Mahasaiin-ud ( CS ). The Sub Bii.visional Gf-SieeE, Saralg'alJ.,' Dtstrieti ; Mahasauund ( e.'Sji: ') The Chief Exeeufelve Offifser, VTaBgad eanel»ayafc» Sasnag : Distsriefe s Mabasanwund ( G S ) Ths Sarpaneh, Village Paaeha. yafc s Bu&lpalA:» Tehsil s Basna, Sts'fets : Mabasanund ( e. s. ) 11 glM S.^^ Stayan fcal, Sen ®f Tihar Singb NavraSna,i per aiaaeaS Eesidsab ef.village.': ©sddaE-. ha» . Bl®<sl£s: Saraaffarh," :':.^ present resldeae afc village s| IfedsBalill; Village-Paacfeayati Butipali.,' lehsAI t.Basaay Dts'bls i Mahasaniad ( G'S) T. Buaheshwaa?, Son ®fGhlTOfea Ran resldeae of vtllage j Iledas- palA.: ..TehsU, s Be^aif'-,.- ! ' Distit; s Mahasanand (!G-©5 ' ^^--^-.-.—^-.-^i vss.sSS^a-.ss^^^mM-^saKL-.^-ss.^sasssEas^ tfhwh jioirti ^i^i»?toiintlitfi * i ^ QS-INBIA.: , : :1 .'",_ _:_____—__2—. ^^WH,»»»»^»W~~»»H^i»»H»^^^ • • • • <E'/T* i:ri:"!i.riMi;^i—r ii-4-.J.lJu.L.. ••-"^•^.asas-xfyf:^^^, i">sirc:S.itB HIQMGeiURTOFCI-tl-IATTISQARM^BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRn-PETI~Fi0NiNQ^9970P2005 Bhuwhgshwar ;;Versus •:.,:.','.• : • : : StafeofChhattisgarh&Ctthers •fe' (WritPetitioraunaerArfie;l©226^2T^ SingleBench : t-jej'l'bleSI'tff.Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present:- ShriV.K..|3aiiad|^^clve!GatefQrthepetifipner. Shn NyN. RQy^anel Lawyerfor'theState. Qhri Pankaj ^hrivastava, Advocate for the,resp6ndente •':::,No.4&.5.,:.;';,.''.,:.'.'^.:;.^^ : :. 1; Ms|ndira^rip^hi,Advoeateforthe-respoiM6ntNo ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on thi& 5th day ofApril, 2010) HeardlearnedcQunselfqrtheparties. 1. The case G)f''the^ petjtioner is tKat tl-te^ petitioner alQng with 11 otherpersonsincli^ingrespondSnt^N^@madeanap|Sl(cationfor appoinfmeftt&nthepostofPanchayatKarmi.A^ of the applieatiQn forms, the.Gram PanGtlayat Butipali, Basna, DiStrictMahasamurid,videits^res0lytiondated 14-1-2004 (Anhexure — P/2); on the basis of^^^K^ petitiohBr i.e. B.A., recoramended ttte name ofthe petitioner^fo appointrrientonttiepostofPaneh§yat;Karmi.Thesaiclclecisi6n[ wa^approved bythe Gram^Sabhg. Th&Feafl^t t^ oi^er^ -» 12^-2004!(Annexure-P/4)We p^itionerwas appoihted on^^t^ post of Pahchayat Karrtii. ; Rursuant te the said^o petitionerjoinedon 16-7-2p04 (Anriexure—P/5). 2. Being aggrievetf by the "apRoil-rtmSnt of the/ petitiQner, | the respondent No.6 herein pFeN|Ted;a a ssstaB5'aa-"s5Sgg"«)>i;-i5SaNSSi if»t|\VMI,Jiifl5a^|tl!lhlltiWf t'1mil<ilK8 •^ Divisional Qfficerand competentauthority,Saraipali,challenging appointment of the petitioner on the ppst of Panchayat Karmi. TheSubDivisionalOffiGerandcpmpetentauthority.Saraipaliby orderdated 3-11-2004 (Annexure—R/6)allowedtheappealof the respondentNo.6,caneelihgtheappointmentofthepetitioner. Injtiation of^fresh selection process was direGted. Thereagainst thepetitionerpreferredanaiapealbeforetheAdditionalCollector, Mahasamund jn case N0.5-A/89 year 2QQ4-Q5. The Additional Colleetpr by orderdated 14-9-2005i (Annexure - P/1) dismissed the appeal upholding the ©rderdated 3-11 -20Q4 passed by the Sub Divisionat Qfficer and competent authority, Saraipali. Thus, thispetition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was haying rnore qualifleation than other candidates. Accordingly.thenameofthepetitiQnerwasrightlyrecQmmehded for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. The said recommendation was apprQved by the Gram Sabha thereafter and consequent thereupon ttie apRointment order dated 12-7-2004waspassed.Pyrsuanttathesaidorder,thepetitioner joined on the ppst of PanGhayat Karmi on 16-7-2004. Learned counsel further submjts that while' passing the order dated 3-11-2004 the Sub Divisiohal Offieer and cpmpetent authority, Saraipali, completelyignQredtheprpyi?ions'ofclause 3.30fthe Panchayat Karmj SGtiemewherein itis clearly prpvided that the Gram PanchayatGan byresolutjQntakeadecisiontoappointthe candidates having, higher qualification, ^though minimum qualificatiQn, as required was 10' class or high SGhoo^^^^p^ examination certificate in 10+2 system. Leamedrf;ounsel next t »r submits that the Additional Collector has alsp not consiaered the legal aspects aswell as the recommendation of Gram Panchayat and dismissed fhe appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 14-9-2005. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 & 5 submits that the resolution of Gram Panchayatrecommending the riame of the petitiorier, who was,in addition to high school examination certificate was graduate and fhe Grarri Panchayat in its resolutiondated 13-12-2003 as prescribed under clause 3.3 of the Panchayat Karnni Scheme has resolved to make recommendation oh the basis of the higher qualification holding the minimum qualification as 10 or high schoiol pass examination certificate. The Fecommendatiori of the Gram Panchayatwas inaccordanee with law. Learned counsel appearing for the respondentNo.6 submits that the minimum qualificationis high school or 10 . pass examination certificate. The respondent No.6 has got 62% in 10 class and the petitioner who has been recommended for appointment on the postof Panchayat Karmi has got only 55.33% in highschool and in graduation he has got 50.89%. In high school examination the respondent No.6 has secured the more marks and, as such, the Gram Panchayat ought to have recommended, name of the respondent No-6 for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. Thus, the orders dated 3-11-2004 and 14-9-2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the s^^^ •^ Additional Collector, respectively are just, proper and in accordancewith law. 6. Clause 3 of the Panchayat KarmiScheme (Annexure — R4/1) provides for qualification for the post of Panehayat Karmi. Sub-clause (1) of clause 3 provides for minimum qualification i.e. 10 class or high school pass examination certificate. Clause 3.2 provides for minimum age and 3.3 makes additional provision that the concerned Gram Panchayat by resolution may takehigher qualification into consideration for appointment. The Gram Panchayat, after having received several appliGations wherein itappears that some candidates were having more than high school pass examination certificatg, resolved to consider those candidateswho had more qualification, inits meeting held on 13-12-2003 (Annexure - R/4-2). Accordingly, by resolution dated 11-1-2004 (Annexure - P/2) the nameof the petitioner was recommended.as he was having B.A. qualification also. On consideration it was found that the petitioner was the resident of village Butipali and the respondent No.7 was not the resident of Butipali, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was recommended for his appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. 7. In viewof foregoing, the orderdated 3-11-2004 (Ahnexure- P/6) -•» passed by the Sub Divisiorial Officer andcompetent authority, Saraipali and the order dated 14-9-2005 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Additional Collector, Mahasamund, are not sustainable in law. The authorities below have taken into consideration qnly the qualification or percentage of marks 4") i^^^^-^^E 8. Gowri obtained in high school pass examinatjon certificate. The authorities have completely ignored the higher qualification obtained by the petitioner and the respondent No.7 and the resolution of Gram Panchayat dated 13-12-2003 (Annexure - R/4-2) in exercise ofits power under clause 3.3 ofthe Panchayat Karmi Scheme, the impugned orders are indefensible. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 3-11-2004 and 14-9- 2005 are quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.^nillotri judge o llllll!!!!"!'"