^^^^^^^^s ® IN THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION No?^®/2006 Cs5 PETITIONER ^^ ^•'c^^" /• Smt. Manjeeta Patel W/0 Shri Prakash ..••^b1?' Bhai Patel, R/0 Gram Odari Block - •^•fy" ^^r^. 1- Wadrafnagar, Wadrafnagar, Tehsil- Distt- Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Geetanjali Patel W/0 Shri Omprakash Patel, Cast-Kunavi , R/0 Village - Odari, Graam Panchyat Odari, Block - Wadrafnagar, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar, Distt.-Sarguja (C.G.) •^- /j '-y/y '<». •'?••>."'-—SA'•• / ^^f^^' "^t^^^-?^^' 2- Bindeshwar singh S/0 Rupsai Cast - ^ Gond, Secretary ,Graam Panchyat Odari, Block - Wadrafnagar, Tehsil - Wadrafnagar, Distt. - Sarguja ( C.G.) ^ 3- Shri Hardev singh S/0 Shri Ramrup, Cast- Gond, Sarpanch ,Graam Panchyat Odari, Block- Wadragnagar, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) ^4- Shri Harish Chandra Gupta S/0 Shri Mahabir Gupta, Janpad Vice President/ President Permanent Education Sameeti , Wadrafnagar, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) 5- Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar, Distt.- Sarguja , (C.G) -I i1! IJ1B w ^. ^^•: @E*'i.:,;S^'17?tah3.'; .-;l.ui<-?!.[iiLi:^".!1"'"'"''"'F" a^^:»^ :w: l^^^®%'^^%?i' / 6- Upper CoUector, Sarguja, Ramanujganj District-Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQNUNDERARTtCLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 //, fes . Q^ SSH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAmSGARH: BILASPUR Petitioner : Sinfc Maujeeta Patel Versus Respondents : Sint Geetaajali Patel &, ofhers } '- Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate ajid Shri Neeraj Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri D. N. Preijapati, Advocate for fhe respondeiit No. 1. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 aiid 3. Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate for the i^spondent No.4. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyr for fb.e i^spondent No.6. 'v- {11th October, S006] 1. The petitioner has assailed the award of the order dated 28.6.2006 passed by tlie Additional CoBector, Ranianujganj, District- Suruguja iii Paiichayat Appeal No. 2/B-121/2005-2006 beiag wifhout jurisdiction. 2. Tlie undisputed facts in nut shell are that the petitioner was appointed as Giiniji under tlie Rajeev Gaiidhi Shiksha Guarantee Scheine (for short 'the E. G. S.' ), sponsoied by tlie Rejeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission at vfllage Odaj-i, Block Wadnifnagaj-, District- Jjfcl, 3. Being aggrieved b;r non-appointment ofthe respondent No. 1, she had filed au appeal befoi^" the Additional Collec'tor under Section 9 1. of the Pan.cbayaf. Raj Avani Gram Swaraj Adhiniyain, 1993 (for short 'the Adhmiyam, 1993' ). By orier dated 28.6.2006, the Additional CoUector withoiit considering the facts as to whether he has 2 jurisdiction to decide the appeal against the order of the appoiatment of Guruji iinder the E. 0. S. or not, proceeded to dccide tlie appeal aiid canceUed the appointinent orier dated 4.7.2003 passed ill favour of the petitioner. It was fiirfher directed to initiate process for inaknij fnesh appointment. 4. Heand leaniecl counsel for the pai-ties and penised the records appended to tbe petition and retiini thereto. 5. I ain of the view that the Additional CoUector has no junsdiction. to entei'tain the appeal against tbe orier of ap]'»ointineBt of Guruji under fhe E. G. S. The E. G. S. provides iil claiise 7 that an appeal is inainta-Inable befoiie the Cbief Execntive OfBcer ofjanpad Paachayat of tlie concenied Grain Panchayat agaiDst the orders passed by fhe Grani Panchayat under the E. G. S. i. Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Riiles, 1995') havc been {rsasied in exercise oftlie powers confen-ed by tlie sub-section (t) ofSectidn 95 read with Section 91 ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993, which provides forappeal and fhe appellate authority. It cleariy pi-ovides that appeal against the orier passed under the provisioas of the Adhiniyain 1993 shaB be inaiiitauiable to the Sub Divisional Officer against the orier passed iinder the Adhiniyajn, 1993. 7. The appouitinent of the petitioner on the post of Guniji was not raider fbe piovisions of fhe Adhiiiiyain, 1993 and the Rules naade thereuncler, and as si.ich, Section 91 ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993 cannot 'be iavoked. Bven othenvise, Rufe 3 of fhe Rules, 1995 excludes the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Of&er in appeal if the saine has been otlieiwise provided iinder the Acts and Rules or by laws thereunder. ^ TKAur N*»r-u^,. 8. !n fhe present case the appeal has been provided under the E. G. S. wberein the appointaient of the petitioner as Giiruji was inade. There is a clear provision under Clause 7 ofthe Rajeev Gandhi Education Guarantee Scheme thiis tbe provisions of the Adhiniyaia, 1993, particularly Section 91 is not applicable. , 9. Por tbe reasons stated above and as a result this petition is allowed and the orier dated 28.6.2006 passed by tlie Acldjtional CoUector in Pancliayat Appeal No. 2/B-123./2005-2006 is set aside. No onder as to costs. | r,_., , ^~. .. - . Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^