Saheb Ram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

2024:CGHC:39462

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 316 of 2021

¶6

1 - Saheb Ram Patel S/o Shri Madan Singh Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kanwarpali, Block- Saraipali, District- Mahasanumd, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - The Additional Commmissiioner Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The Deputy Director Panchayat And Social Welfare, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - The Gram Panchayat Through The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kanwarpali, Block- Saraipali, Kanwarpali, Block- Saraipali, District-Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - Kamalmani Patel S/o Shyamlal Patel R/o Village Dhaispali, Block- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Veena Nair, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate

¶16

2 / 5

¶17

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

ORDER ON BOARD

¶19

04/10/2024

¶20

This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for the following relief(s):-

¶21

“10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned orders dated 26.03.2019, 10.11.2016 and 29.08.2014 (Annexure P/1, P/2 & P/3) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate/allow the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kanwarpali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.).

¶22

10.2. That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may also be given.”

¶23

Petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the legality and sustainability of the order dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioner before the Respondent No. 1 came to be dismissed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. Petitioner along with others including Respondent No. 6 have submitted application for their appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi of Village Panchayat Kanwarpali, Block – Saraipali, District – Mahasamund, C.G. The appointing authority being the Village Panchayat, duly considered all the applications and found the petitioner suitable for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi issued appointment order in his favour vide order dated 18.04.2006 (Annexure P/6). Order passed by the Village Panchayat was put to challenge before the Zila Panchayat by the Respondent No. 6 and the Respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat without considering the guidelines issued for appointment of Panchayat Karmi by the State Government has erroneously passed an order setting-aside the order of appointment of the

¶25

3 / 5

¶26

petitioner and ordered for the appointment of Respondent No. 6 as Panchayat Karmi of Village Panchayat Kanwarpali, Block – Saraipali, District – Mahasamund, C.G.

¶27

He contended that it is for the Village Panchayat to select an applicant to be appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi and in the proceedings recorded by the Village Panchayat, petitioner was selected. The Respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer in its order has only considered that the Respondent No. 6 secured more marks in high school exam, whereas, in the guidelines issued by the State Government, it is not mentioned that the candidate who is having higher marks is only to be selected and appointed. Petitioner is resident of same village and therefore, he is having preferential right to be appointed as Panchayat Karmi, which was considered by the Village Panchayat and accordingly, he was appointed. This issue was not considered by the Respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer and the Appellate Authority, hence, this petition be allowed.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that Village Dhaispali is also the dependent village of Village Panchayat - Kanwarpali and therefore, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the Respondent No. 6 is not local resident of the village is not sustainable. They contended that even if the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, both Respondent No. 6 and the petitioner are residents of the same Village Panchayat and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim preferential right and his submission in this regard is not correct. They also submit that the Respondent No. 4 and the appellate and revisional authority has rightly considered that without assigning reasons, less meritorious candidate was selected and appointed and therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the

¶30

4 / 5

¶31

documents placed on record.

¶32

Petitioner has enclosed the guidelines issued by the State Government for appointment of the Panchayat Karmi to the Village Panchayat. For appointment of the Panchayat Karmi, Village Panchayat is the appointing authority, minimum qualification is prescribed as 10^th Class under (10+2) pattern or high school certificate exam, not less than 18 years of age and discretion is left upon the Village Panchayat to add any additional qualification on the proposal to be passed by the Village Panchayat in that regard and further, in Clause 3.4, it is mentioned that as far as possible, the candidate should be a local resident.

¶33

In the proceedings challenging the appointment of the petitioner, marks obtained by both in high school examination and secondary school examination of both i.e. petitioner and Respondent No. 6 are extracted. In both the examinations, Respondent No. 6 have been shown to be secured more marks than that of the petitioner. In the writ petition, petitioner has also placed on record, the proceedings recorded by the Village Panchayat for appointment of the Panchayat Karmi. Perusal of the proceedings would show that it does not mention that the Village Panchayat recorded any special reasons for not appointing the meritorious candidate and to appoint the petitioner.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the Panchayat Karmi holds the public office. Panchayat Karmis are conferred with the powers of Secretary under Section 69 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and if, the appointment is to be made based on the selection, merit is to be seen and if for any reason, less meritorious candidate is to be appointed, then, the specific reason in this regard has to be recorded. In absence of any specific reason recorded by the Village Panchayat, Petitioner who secured less marks than that of the Respondent No. 6 in the high school examination could not have been selected and appointed. The Respondent No. 4/Chief

¶35

5 / 5

¶36

Executive Officer have considered that the Respondent No. 6 being a meritorious candidate is to be appointed which was also affirmed by the appellate and revisional authority , it is in accordance with law. Hence, it does not call for any interference.

¶37