1 MGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Wrft Petltion fS) No. 4402 of20ff7 PETITIONER : Tulsi Das Ajay, S/o Shri Ram Dayal Ajay, aged about years, resideat of Village Balsi, Tahsil Saraipali, Dirit. Mahasamund (CG). VERSU8 RESKWDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, tfarough Secretary, Panchayat, Welfare Devel<yment Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 2. Deputy Directar, Pauchayat and Social Wetfare Department Raipin- (CG). 3. Collector, Mahasamund (CG). 4. ChiefExecutive QfScer, Jaiyad Panchayat, Saraipali, Tafasil Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (CG). 5. Saipanch, Gram Panehayat Balsi, Tafasil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG). 6. Jagbandhu Swain alias Pralap Sin^h Swain, S/o Shri Oadadhar Swain, resident ofvillage Balsi, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG). (WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA) (SS: Hon'Me Mr. Sattsh K. ABirihotri. J.) Fresent : Shri Manoj K. Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 6. ORALORDER (Passed on 11"' ofFebruary, 2QOS) 1. The petitioner, by tfais petition, filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia, impugns tfae validity oftheorder dated 07.07.07 (ABnexure P/14), passed by the Deputy Dtrector, Panchayat and Social Welfare Departnient, whereunder, the respondent No. 6 was declared as Panchayat Secretary in the Gram Panchayat, Balsi, in exercise ofhis power under section 69 (1) of Chhattisgaili Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafler referred to as tfae Act, 1993). Leamed counsel appeariag fw tfae petitioaer submits that the declaration of respoadent No. 6 as Panchayat Secretary is bad, unjust and improper on the ground that he is less qualified thmi die petitioner and he is related to the Panchas ofOram Panchayat Balsi. E;II 2. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing fw the reqwndent No. 6 submits Ihat tfae petitioner has not challenged the appointment oflhe Panchayat Karmi, even before the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Wetfare Dqwrbnmt. The prayer made in this petition clearly demonstrates that the petitioner is aggrieved by appointment ofthe respondent No. 6 as Panchayat Secretary, not as Panchayat Karmi. 3. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 siibmits that fhere is a provision of appeal under 1he provisions ofPanchayat Karmi Scheme as well as under provisions ofthe Act, 1993. 4. The petitioner, without expressing any extraordmary circumstances, has attempted to take recourse whhout availing statutory remedy of appeal before the authorities. Leamed counsel has pointed out that claiise 8 oftfae Panchayat Kamri Seheme (Annexure R/2) clearly provides Aat any candidate being aggrieved by order passed imder Panchayat Raj Adhmiyam, 1993, can take recourse to provisions ofappeal under section 91 ofthe Act, 1993. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the partieg, pemsed fte pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is clearly evident from bare penisal of the impugped order dated 07.07.07 that by the said order the respondent No. 6 was nominated ag Panchayat Secretary under section 69(1) ofthe Act, 1993. In absence of Ifae challenge to the u-der of appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi, this challenge is not maintainable, as Panchayat karmi alone is normally declared as Panchayat Secretary uader section 69(1) of the Act, 1993. 6. K is fiirther found that the petitioner has not challenged appointment ofthe Panchayat Karmi anywhere, except one ground taken in this petition, witfaout challengmg the same in the prayer clause. _.^- 1 ^" /^^ s yss-m-x: ES&ki^ ^ 1v>c^' 7. In view oftiie foregoing, Ifae nomination ofthe respondent No. 6 on the post ofPanchayat Secretary is proper as he was woridng as Panchayat Karmi. 8. Ttiere is no semblance of any legal or statirtory right. This petition is devoid ofmerit and accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu t J1' 1