5 IN THE HON'BLE HI&H COURTOF CHHATTESGARH ATBIl-ASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. JM^[ ^OF 2010 APPELLANT y1 RESPONDENTS : •^%-?v. .^v^^ r^yy /fff' 7 ^Jt' / ^/~. / ^'' -" y << \S)~'' 1 VERSUS r. 5. Shyam Lal Son of Tihar Singh Navratna, permqnentresidentof Village-Gaidarha,Block-Sardngarh, presentresidentofVillage- Hedspalt, Village Panchdyat-Butipali, Tahsil- Basna/District- Mahasamund, (C.G.). 6. 'The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary DepQrtment i of Panchayatahd SocialWelfare, Mantralaya, b.K.S. Building, Raipyr, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 'Bhuneshwar, S/0 Dalpatrani Sahu, aged about 27 years, working as a Panchayat Karmi, Residentof Village- Butipali, Block-Basna, Tahsil- Basna, District- Mahasamund, (C.6.). Additional Collector, District- Mahosamund, (C.6.). The Sub Sub Divisional Officer, Saraipali, District A^ahasamund, ^...- ..'.... The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Basna, t^istrict- Mahasamund, (C.6.) r The Sarpanch, Villdge Panchayat- Butipali, Tahsit-Basna, Di'strict- A|aha^nund, (C.G.). ^ Budheshwar, S/OChinta Ram, R/0 Viltasge- Medaspali, Tahsil- Basna, District- Mahasamund, (C.6.) WRIT APPEALUNDERSECTrON2fl)OFTHECHHArnS6ARH HI6H COURTf APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH YACT2006. READ WITH EULE 157 01 fa) OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES. 2005. • MI(3HGCmifFQl:^l-lHAT"TlSG»^M,sBlt-ftSI:>UR Coram: iMc(lCl:iilelSl3ni'ERaieeM^Gui:(ta..C.J.& HoM'BIS'iSI'inSSunil;Kumai"Sinlia,J, WRIT^RIBIEAL.NG):144/2010 ;Shy|rr(;:l-^l!. 'SS!S/ssS |!M^i;atigQK(%B^is@a|' |iny|3H'j@is'i ORDER HON'BI-ESHRIJUSTICEiRAJEEWi^t.lB-rA j r"t Sd/- SunUKumarSinha Judge Sd/- ChiefJustice P6StforJudgment:1l_/09/2Q1fl_ 1 .'. : Sd/- . ;. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HIGHCOURTOFCMHATTISGARH.BIL.ASPUR Coram: Hon'bleShriRaieeVGuDta.G.J.& l-f6n'bleShri?SunJI KumarSihha, J. WRITAPPEAL N0.144/20-10 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS ^ '« Shyain Lal Son ofTihar Singh Navratna, permanent resident ot Village - ©aidarha, Block Sargingarh, pr^sent resident of ^i|la!ge^%;sl;,l-1;easpali,^::,' ;Vill£i;ge; ;F)an^Ha^it-Bi.ltiRa|i, .; ,; Tahsil Basina.gKDiStFict^ Klahisisamund ^(C.6.)'::,i.,::..':;.^,,,.,,^^^^ Versus The State of Chhattisgarh^ through the Seeretary;' Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Building, Raipur, District Raipur'(e.G.^ ;w r ^ • Bhunest'iwar S/o Dalpatram Sahu, ,aged about 27 years, worKina as a Panchayat Karmi, Resident pf Village - Butipali, Block Basna, Tahsil Basna, DistrictMahasamund(C.G.) Additional Collector, Mahasamund (C.G.) District The Sub Sub Divisional Officer, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C-G^ •> ...:.1;. The Chief Executive OffiGer, Janpad Panchayat, Basna, DistrictMahasamund (C.G.) The .Sarpanch, ^iViliage PanGhayat-Butipali, Tahsil Basha^ ^"Distnct ^ Mahasamund <C.G.) •• ;.',.' :,:• ::^ Budheshwar, S/Q Ghinfa Ram, R/o Village—h|edaspali, Tahsil Basna, District MahSsarhuhd (C^4,.; :'':.:1: ,::1';: WRITAPPEAL N0.144/2010 'c^- WR!T^PPEALU^DERS@^1@N2(1)ORTHE^HAT^ COUFfT^MPE^LTO01VISI©NaEN<SHyAeT.2006 ADDearance: : . : '• ,'. , •^ 1 ^:.;.^|^a^T'rif)atHi,l^^H^l^fe)F,fi^Bpellant:.. ; , ;f, ; ,' • :1, S^'N£l^:K181tfl"WIB|i^gUlig8|SWffiffiR Genevat: for': ;lthe- £%<|||Bi(jSiSNBBl|SBE||j|®g^^ !, .: ^r^BBIWffiilSilW8lsW'WK0ffi^®WNo2:.:<:;^^ :: Mr. PawariSBri^^EivEi.CSounselfdrres^^ ORDER .r ' .; :..; (21,09.2010) Fpllowina order of the Court was passed by Sunil KumarSinha, J. (1) This appeal is direcNd againstthe order dated OS.042010^ p inW.P,No.4997/20Q5bytheSingle^ydge,C)fthisCc!Urt.^Bytheirnpugned order, the learned Singl^ Judge-i allowed the wi-it petitjon filed by respondentNo.2andquasliedth@arclersdated 03.11.2004 & 14.09.2008 ^ passed by the Sub DivisioRal Qffieerand Additional Golleetor, whereby, theappointment ofrespQndent NQ.2'to the post ofPanchaya^Kamifwas set aside by the said authorities. (2) The facts?briefly stated, are as under- Ttie appellant, Tespondent N6.2, respondent No.7 and 9 othercandiclatesapplieClftiraRpoihtmenttothepostofPaHChayat Kamif of Gram iF?ariehayafeBytipaliiiEBasha,Distri6tiMahasamund Chliattisgarh. ThecanstiidatuFeofallthecandidateswasconsidered by^ the eoTOerned ©ram F^nchayat and vide resolutioh^ ^ / » ;<», I j i:^-y "••EC:wa<*' • c ' 3 .: . : • . • :,...,' WRITAPPEAL N0.144/2010 11;Q1.2004(AnriexureP/2intlrewritpetitiQR),theGramPanchaya^ recornmended for appointment bf respondent No.2 to the post of Panchayat Karmi. Thie deGision 6f the Gram Pariehayat was taken 1:d Granfi Sabha and the Gram Sabha also approved the same. Thereafter, respQhdeniNo.ZwasappointedasPan^aya^^^ GramPanehayatButipaftvicle^orderdated 12.07.2004 (Annexure ;R in^ewritpe^itiofi)i."l-^sponclenf^No.^joined^on 16^07.2004. T^ ^g^uatn^Koy ^sporident No.2 was Gllallenged by tMe appellantiriApRgalCas&No.28-A/89Year 2004-05 beforetheSub Divisional;Qfnc^r/eo^mpeteni.authQnty,TheGompetentauthpnt^ < • •; allowed We appeal vide order dated 03.11.2004 and set aSide the appoihtment of respondent N0.2. Respondent No.2 filed another appeal before the Aclditional Collector vide Case N0.5-A/89 Year 2004-05, challengingtne order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, buf tneappealfilecl byrespQndent No.2wasdismissedvidS orderdated 14.09.2005 andtheQrderpasSedbytheSLibDivisional Offk^r yras confirm^. Thgreafter, respQ N0.4997/2005, whichwasallowgd bythe learned SingleJudgeand the No orders passed the concernedauthorities w/ere quashed, The appointment of respprtdent No.2 to the post.of Pancfiayaf Karon yvas lTiainly,;.Gl^l!^ng^^ Rerein'v^ Trio^quatifiid as'he^had obtai^h^ (10*2) Examirtatioh^wH^teas,reSpcmdentNa2pbtaioed 55.33% 12tt (16+2) Exarnination.^hetwoauthoritiesupheldtHee^ rajseAbylhe appellant and held that theselection/appointment respondentNo.ZtotRepostQfPani^^^^/mfwasnotpropeF ^ ,v x WRIt^PEAL N0.144/2010 (3) Aperusalbftheresolutiondated11.Q1.2Q04(AnnexureP/2inthe writ petition) would show that in all, 12 candidates had applied fbr appointment to the posf of Pancftayaf Kam?/ of Gram Panehaiyat Butipali. Out of those 12 eandidates, 10 candidates were having essential qualifiGationand3cancliclatesi.e.oneGopalSingh,resppndentNQ.2and respondent No.7 were having higher flualifications. The Panchayat resfiily^ to tal^ jnto consider^Qn the candidates, who were^^ h higher qualifica hs. TH®reasons for all that h^^ resolutiondated 11.01.2004. AfterGomparing the qualifieations and interse merits among the 3 persons i.e. Gopsil Singh, resporident No.2 <: , and respondent No.7, the Panchayatresolvedto recommendthename of respondentNo.2 (4) Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned eounsel fbr the appellant argued that sincethe appellant obtained"62%'in HigherlSec6ndaryvExamihation,he was more suitable than respondent No.2, thoygh r^spOTident N0.2 was BA. TherefQre, ^the name bf the ;appellant ougKt to ha^^ recpmmehded for appointm^nt to the post of f^nc/iaya^ prayed'forsetfihg'aSide1the1m)3U^Sd^^r;pNsse9:b^ Judge. --. : ' • .! :;;' - / ' : ' : :. - {5) On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Pan^ respoRdent;NQ.2°as also'Mr.yPawan'SHnvas1aVa,'u1earne^ respondents S & 6 opposed these argyments and suppori:ed the order passedbythelearnedSingleJudge. . (6) We hava heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the reGOrds 6f the writ petition. ' : 1 jl?]r lt?ig hlkltt. JLl^S hJ^ ^ (b'i').]K|pH ji h* ^ Itey ll^ytelti hteK' |* ^UW ^^ t>h ^t* lb.h ill ^mM ^yh J2& l^khKL Ihiy KiltStiMSbho >?cyK« (fet^lp ifi^K :;l;!ISlill& ili-il-;;; ;-',.i';^' 'i'; ''"' .^ .:""JI^:-::. ^: 1 1$. VE^L JA t> 1»K ^£^5,IMfeS ^ jJltt 1 ^ mta^ ji, !s^b&. ^.^ ^t ^4^^ i^ ?W;§ l^'by !* t!°lh^^ •Ita^i.jy^j; ^ ^.Ul^ hPlh^ I* ]kih klK (^],11?.|> lt?ty Mhy 91? 1!»IS ije. jJ^M1a^l^l ^lt?^j>lb^K^^^^ 1.1 ii^^K; % cs'og ^ •ii-^ uai£,% ss-sg ^ ^t ^ £IM ^^^ftj^'iii^:^:%zz'es^-h'^^^ Itjk ltZ^4?^!'lb.y >h- (Mbt>|h. i,[ttikS: ^ It^ ^ AlM^ U2& j^ZI. l^lft |* jMfci&^HP (5 ifcjg JA Sj^.Plh^ ^^ltnPjl^ ii^ais% ss'os ^. •&'^ i % ES-gs ^ j^zi ^ ^ wiw. .ya .atttt 'f q'lftlji % ZZ'£9 j? '^ ilBl^ AZ;£9 ^: ^Zt ^ la^ ^ ^l ^sg %S'OS ^. •LAh 1 ES'St' l^ 'h^ 'Z8-61? ^^ A1KIK |(tifrP4-ty]A;g .(ap^ OhjQk& tyitSIS 31^ 1 JM. I^j^yfa^^^.J^^j^l^l^p l^.l^ , krfcy h Kt>^ (fc^bs^.itep'^b^ffi ^i^ pm : I. J^y. ^ ^ ^yM^te ^ lt)f?>lh. hFibaP ^ ^i ^fc PWIih,, :jspun se pesj 43!4M 'uo!in|osaj 8t|^josuo!iJodiueA9|8j &L|I sionb oi 9>|!| p|nQAA9/V\ 7We>/^ey3yec/ P isod atj^ otiusLin.uiodde •IQlZ'ONlUSPUOdSQJlQSl.UBU 31.11. BuiRUSyjLUQOSJ 4QlSyOSB8J8qi SRJ039J (uo!»!tsdtUMSi4iU!2/ds.inxsuyv)^OOZ'1.0'l.l P3»ep UQiin|OS8j sqi (z) .^ oi.oz/ffri.'ONivaddviiyM I. I •il^-y: "'X.C^B^B^' WRlTAPPE^L N0.144/2010 (8) TRe above resolution was i.inanimOus resolution.; The resolution shows the applicatiQn offfiind ctfthe concemed Gram RariGhayat^^^ manner, it cannot be said that the selection made by the Gram Ranchayat on the basis of/nterse merits was not in aGcordancevvitlitheschemeor tliedireptiohsissueclintliatbehalfbytheStateGovernment. (9) VVe flnd Ihat in exerasesf the powers Conferred in Section 69(1) ^|OT^ei^o|^QI^^ the®an(^aj@fea^ 1993, Vhe Govemmeht has issued 13ar(c^yat^KaFmi?ScHeme^r Sppoiri^ PanctiayafKa/Tn/.AGcordingtothesaidsclieme.clayse 3.1, theessential cjualifieation for appointmentt6thepbsf6fParicfia}^fKam?fis10|hclass or Migh Sehool Certificate Examination passed under 10+2 systiem. It has further been mentioned in elause 3.3 that the Panchayatwill have right to add desirable qualificatibns also in addition to the educational qualification fbr appointment to the post of Panc/layaf Ka/m/ bym :resolytionfort^esamfc^.._^^;,^ (10) fh the present e^se, the Panchayaf unanimously resolved to take the persons havjng higher qualifications tlian the essential C|ualifications prescribed inclause 3.3. Underthesaidresolutionclated 11.01.2004, the Panchayat<:irstlyeliminatedthenamesof10candidates,ihcludingthe appell^t/ who were only having essential qualifiCations^^ a^^ remainjng pS'GaHeticlateis, the^PanGhEiyat fo having 49.87% ^m (31^ XII, 48.83% inBA.and 50.5% in^.M also found that respondent N6.7 was a graduate and was hayihg 53.77% in Class-XII and 53.22% Tn B,A. and respondent No.2 got 55,33% in ClassXlland 50.83% jnB.A.I-o6kingtothe'factthafrespQndentNQ.2gQt 55,33% jn Cla^-p and, Ii^,gpt,!5p.83%ynBA.^£mdwasalOeal^resi(te •^" •:^^^s^' • '^ '% ' w %,^y f ^ks.cS"1 ^.---' WRITAPPEAL N0.144/2610 of village Butipali, where the ofRce ofthe Gram PanGhayat issituated, the Panchayat reeommended his narne for selection and appointrnent to tHe post of Panchayat Kaffni. It appears that the Grani Panchayat gave due weightage to the marks bbtained in Class-Xtl examination and it also gaveweightagetotheRlaceofresidenGeofrespondentNo.2. (11) We note that condition No.3.5 of the scheme states that as far as possible the eandidate should be the local candidate and the reason assigne^ jsthat in such situation, itwould be easyfbr him for performing the duties. This has also been taken into consideration by the Gram 1 Panchayat. The resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, theFefore, cannotbesaitfto bearbitratyorillega|;rVVerfurther'iiotethat'GQpalSingh, who was M.A. had not challenged the selection/appointment of respondent No.2. It was challenged by the appellant, who was only havingtheessentialqualification. :11'»-': • :1 . •' .1 . •: ;•' • ' : • !. • '• • ; : ': (12)ThelearnedSingleJudgehastakenncte6fallthesefactsandhas^^ rightly set aside tfe orders passed bytlrotvro au orderof appointmentofrespondentNo.2wass6taside. (13) Fon thejfgregpingi^?Qps;i^jd^^qtrfind jctny sybis{arice jn this /nfracourt appeal. (14) The appeal is tiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. <15) N&orderas to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge ~>^^