Bholaram Verma VERSUS PETITIONER 1 1 AH?“ WRIT PETITION No. 3772 of 2005__ J T Post for oer on 2 3TMarch, 2007 / Sci- d atish K. Agmimn‘i ‘ Juga ‘a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR he State of Chhattisgarh & Others. W rd S i T @V HIGH’COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S B. : HON’BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI J. WRIT PETITION gogjggfngggs Bholaram Verma, aged about 32 years, Sfo Bisanlal Verma, R/o Villagg Rcwagahan Tahs1l and Thana Dongargarh D1stt Rajnandgaon (C G ) VERSUS . The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat and Rural D6partment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur . Sub Dmsronal Officer, Dongargarh Dlstt Rajnandgaon .Gram Panchayag Through its Sarpanch, Gram Panehayat Rewagahan, Janpad Panchayat Dongargarh Distt. Rajriandgaon. . Chief Executive Ofiicer, V Janpad Panchayat Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon. .Dalchand Verma, S/o ‘Bhootram Verma, R/ovillage Rewagahan, Tahsil and Thana Dongargarh Distt. Rajna‘ndgaon (C.G.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Present: Shn Parag Kotecha Advocate for the petltroner Shn Sushll Dubey, Govt Advocate for the State/respondent No 1 and 2 Sim Vivek Verma, Advocate appeanng on behalf of Shn Satrsh Gupta Advocate for the respondent no 4 ' None appears for respondent no ’% and 5 g ' ORDER. 7 (Passed on ,23’zMarch, 2007) By this petition, the petitioner challengee the resolution dated 16.05.2005 (Annexure P/2) whereunder it was resolved to ' appoint the respondent no. 5 as Panchayat Kanni in Gram Panehayat Rewaghan, Tehsil Dongargarhg Dietrict Rajnandgaon and the order dated 25.06.2005 (Annexure P/4) passed by- the' Sub Divisional OEwer, Dongargarh holding that the Sub Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision/appeal under provisions of Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. The indisputable faets in nutshell are that the petitioner having obtained 49% marks in the 10m examination, made an application alongwith others for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi in Village Panchayat/Revv’aghan. On the basis of marks, the name of the petitioner was placed at serial no. l and the name of the respondent no; 5 was placed at serial no. 3 as the respondent no. 5 has got 34% marks in the 10m examination certihcate. The petitioner and one Pekhanlal obtained equal votes; the respondent no. 5 who was at serial no. 35 was considered for appointment in' the resolution dated 19.04.2005'(Annexure P/l) passed'by the Gram Panchayat. The said resolution was thereaiter approved by the Gram Sabha in its resolution dated 16.05.2005 (Annexure P/2). Alter approval of the resolution by the Gram Sabha, no appointment order was issued/However, the respondent no. 5 was permitted to work asvPanchayat Karmi/Secretary, t Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that permitting the respondent no. 5 to work as Panehayat Karim/Secretary i5 without any order of appointment pursuant to ‘ resolution passed by Gram Panchayat and approved by Gram * sabha‘ Secondly, the respondent no, 5 has got lesSer‘marks in '7 10m examination certificate. Thirdly, the relatives i of the ' - respondent 110.. 5, namely brother, uncle are elected Up—Sarpanch _ and l5anch of the Panchayat.’ Learned counsel appearing for the-respondent no. 4 categorically submitted that no person can be permitted to work as Panehayat Karmi without proper order, pursuant to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha, None appears for the respondent no. 3 and 5 despite service of notice. It is tnitethat the resolution or a decision in a meeting is not the order which can be, given eEect to. There should be a proper order pursuant to the resolution for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi. The Panehayat _ & Rural Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarhi vide its circular No. I ‘W/qat/mie/moe/m w new 16.03.2006 has clarified that after resolution of Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha to appoint Panchayat Kanni, the Sarpanch haS to pass an appropriate appointment order for appointment of Panchayat t Karmi. It is further stated that in case of removal from the post of e /Panchayat Karmi also, after‘resolution of Gram Sabha, the order of removal is to be passed by the Gram Pan‘chayat. Thus, it is clear that no appointment can be given witho’ut‘issuing proper appointment order. In the present case, it appears that the respondent no. 5 has been permitted to work as Panchayat Karmi on the basis of resolution passed by the Giant Panehayat and approved by Gram Sabha, No legal order has been passed appointing him on the post of ~ ' Panchayat Karmi, With regard to the next contention that the relatives i.e. the brother and the Uncle'are elected Up Sarpaneh and Sarpanch of the Panchayat is concerned, that also disqualifies the respondent no. 5 for being appointed as Panchayat Karmi. The circular dated 27.05.1996 clearly provides that no person; Whose near relative is either government employee or elected or nominated member of the office bearer of the Panchayat Raj Institute or local bodies, would be appointed as Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. The definition of "rel’ative"_~can be taken from the provisions ofthe Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for sort “the Adhiniyam, 1993”). The ‘ J word “relative” used in the Adhiniyam, 1993 is in‘ Pari-Materia with the word “relativs” used in the circular. “The application of this rule of construction has the merit of avoiding any apparent contradiction between a series of statutes dealing with the same ’ subject” (Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Shri Guru Prasanna Singhi Tenth Editiona 20065 page 278), “Relative” has been defined in Section 69 of the Adhiniyam, 1993; which reads, as under:- “69. 2[Provided further that=a person shall not hold charge of a Secretary of Gram Panchayat, if such a person happens to be relative of any onice bearer of the concerned Gram Panchayat. Explanation-for the purpose of this sub-section the expression “relative” shall mean father, mothen brother, sister, husband? Wife, son, daughter, father-in-law, brother—in-law, sister-ins law, daughter-in—law,]” The Sub Divisional OEicer has rightly rejected the appeal/revision on the ground that since no order has been passed appointing the respondent no. 5 as Panchayat Karmi, the appeal is not maintainable before the Sub Divisional Officer. v) ’ As a result and for the reasons stated hereinabovea this petition is allowed and the decision to take work of Panchayat Karmi from ‘ I respondent no. 5, without appropriate appointment order is bad and quashed, No order to costs. Sd/_ Shtish K. Agni‘mm‘l ‘ Judge