^•^tSsa;^.,.^ ion'ble Raiesh1 Pawau Kuinar son of Matiettar Vernia, aged about 38 ycars, Resident of ViUage Bhothi, Talisil Khairagarh, Post Bijatala, District RajnandgaoniChliattisgarh) 1. Heiaant Lal, son of Balram Veruia, Resident of Vfflage Bhofhi, Gram Panchayat, Bhothi, TahsH Khairagai'h, District Rajnanadgoan (Chhattisgarh) 2. Gram Paiichayat Bhothi, viUage Bhofhi, Tahsil Khairagarh, Distiict Rajnandgaou (Chhattisgarh) 3. Sub Divisional Oflicer (Reveuue) Tah.sU. Khairagarh, Distnct. Rajnandgaon(ChIiattisgarli) 4. Additional Collector, Rajnaiidgaou, District Rajnandgaou (Chhattisgarh) Shri H.B.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate irifh Sint. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the appeUaut. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 fhough served. Shii A.S.Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State/ i^spoadents No. 3 & 4. :'""- '•: ^< W.A.NO. 148/2009 The appe]laut/petiti.oner has filed fhis appeal against the order dated 26th March, 2009, passed ia W.P.(S) No.7128/2006 by fhe leamed Siagle Judge of this Court. The appeUaiit/petitioner was appoiated as Paachayat Karmi on 27.6.2005 by a resolufion of Gram. Sabha, Bhothi, Developinent Block Khau'agarh, District Rajnandgaon. He was declared as Paiichayat Secretanr uader Section 69 (1) of fhe Clihattisgarh Paachayat Raj Adhmiyam, 1993 (heremafter referred to as fhe Adhiniyamy vide order dated 27.10.2005. The appoiatmeat of fhe appeUaat was challenged by respondent No.l belbre fhe Sub Divisional Ofiicer, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon. The Sub Divisiona] OSicer on due consideration, set aside the appointment of the petitioner on niany factual aspects aiid held that fhe said appointment was not in accordaace with the provisious contaiued m. Panchayat Karmi Yojna. The Sub Divisional OfEcer held that pubUcation for appoiatmeut to tlie said post was not done. The appUcation of eUgible candidate was wrongly rejected aad tlierefon;, resolution No.l dated 1.4.2005 was set asicle ao.cl the ruatter was reinanded for iiiitiation of fresh selection process ia accordaace wifh law. The said order was chailenged by tlie appeUaiit/petitiouer before fh.e Additional CoUector, Rajnaadgaon ia Panchayat Appeal No.lO-A/89-05-06. The Additional CoUector disiaissed fhe appeal filed by the appellant and confcTned the onler passed by fhe Sub Divisional OfScer. Shri H.B.Agrawal, leamed Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of tlie appeUant argues fhat the orders passed by fhe Sub Divisional Officer and fh.e Additional CoUector were not in a.ccordaace wifh law, as fhe provisions contaiaed in Rule 7 of •iwse^' lv,>^ W.A.No. 148/2009 the Panchayat Service(DiscipIiae and Appeal) Rules, 1999, were not foUowed. He also argues that fhe powers of Secretar)r conferrcd -ander Section 69 (1) offhe Panchayat Raj Adhiniyain, 1993, were conferred by the CoUector uiider the Adhiniyani, therefore, settiag aside fhe selection aud appoiatm.ent of tlie appeBaut ou ftie post of Paachayat Karmi by fhe Sub Divisional OfScer, was not ia accoriaiice with law because he was below fhe rarLk of CoUector. On the ofher haad, Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, leamed Dy. Advocate General opposes fhese argum.ents aiid supports fhe orders passed by tlie State Autliorities as also the learued Siiigle Judge of fhis Court. \¥e have heard leamed counsel for the parties at lengfh aud have also perused the record of the Writ Appeal as also tlie Part II! of Panchayat Service (Disciplme and Appeal) Rules, 1999 deals mtti DISCIPLINE. Riile 5 faltuig in fhis Part deals with penalties. Miaor and niajor penalties have been described wifh certain explanation. Rule 6 deals with the Aufhority to iuipose penalties and Rule 7 deals wifh Procedure for tmposiug inajor penalties, in which, it has been provided by sub-rule (1} fhat no order, imposing on a lueiuber of fhe Paachayat Sendce, aay of fhe penalties specified ia clause (iv) to (via) of rule 5 shaU be passed except after a formal iiiquir}' is lield as fai- as niay be, iii fhe inaniier fhereafter provided and then fhe ruanuer has been provided by sub-mle (2), (3), (4) etc. Rule 8 faltmg in fhe saiue Part further provides for Procedure for iinposiag ininor penalties. There are other niles in fhis Part, which relate to Joint Inquiiy, Special procedure in certain cases, Provisions regarding Paiichayat Servaats lent to Goveninient etc., Prov@ions regardiag ofScers or servaats ."'^-.' •'^'"'"'^. /'-S3S v 'y'l..<§ W.A.No.148/2009 borrowed froiu Goveminent etc., Subsistence altowance dui-uii suspeasion aad Reinstateinent. A coinplete readuig of Part III, which begilis froru Rule 4 and ends on Rule 14, would show fhat these niles are only applicable in case of discipluiar^- proceedings as iaitiated against a m.einber of the Paiichayat Service and thus, it is clear tliat fhese rules are not appUcable m. cases, where initial selection is challenged/ set aside on fhe ground of non following fhe procedure for selection to fhat post or for any ofher ground. Therefore, the first arguiuent advanced by Shri Agrawal, cannot be sustaiaed aad fhe same is tumed down. As far as ftie second arguinent regarding passing of order by fiie S.D.0., wlio is below fhe rank of CoUector is concenied, fh.at also caiiuot be sustained, io. view ofthe fact fhat fhe S.D.0 has caaceUed flie selection of the appeUant/petitioner on the post of Paitchayat Karmi on the ground that fhe selection was done witliout foUowing tlie provisions of Panchayat Kanui Yojua and fhat it was done without publicatioii. Therefore, there is no questiou of settuig aside the order passed by the CoUector, which later on only conferred right of Pancha5rat Secretaiy to ttie appeUaiit/petitioner on the basis of holduig the post of Panchayat Karmi. The S. D.0 has simply set aside the selection itsetf aiid consequence of such setting aside would be that fhe orcler issued by the CoUector in favour of the appeUaut/ petitioner confemng powers of Paachayat Secretaiy would go autoiaatically. Such is an essential consequeuce of a valid order passed ia appeUate jurisdiction by the appeUate authority, therefore, it would not be viewed in fhe inaiiiier, iu which, it is We do not fmd any force in. fhis appeal filed by fhe "appeUaat/petitioner. The appeal is liable to be disuiissed aud it is hereby disxaissed. 3 W.A.No. 148/2009 Siace we have upheld fh.e order passed by the Sub Divisional of&cer, we trust fhat if fh.e fresli selection has not taken place tffl date, it would talse place at fhe earliest and we also trust fhat in such a situation, fhe appeUaat/petitioner would be aUowed to participate in the fresh selection process, if he so desires. No cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge j.nita-