Dismissed

Ritesh Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2024WPS/4784/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi based on a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in 2007. The court held that subsequent rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam vested the appointing authority with the Zila Panchayat, rendering the Gram Panchayat's resolution insufficient to create a right to appointment.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ritesh Kumar Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2024:CGHC:33920

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 4784 of 2014

¶7

Ritesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Rameshwar Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, Caste-- Brahmin (Selected Panchayat Karmi), R/o Village Taragawan, Post Kasara, Police Station, Tahsil, Civil and Revenue District Korea- Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1- State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Mahanadi Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2- Collector, Korea, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3- Sub Divisional Officer, Baikunthpur, Distt Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Korea, Dist Korea, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur, Dist Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6 - Gram Panchayat, Taragawan, Through Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur, Dist Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Respondent No.6 : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

03/09/2024

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶19

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/ order/direction to Chief Executive Officer, Jila

¶20

2 / 4

¶21

Panchayat Korea to act upon the memo issued by Sarpanch gram panchayat Taragawan and issue an appointment order to the petitioner for the post of panchayat karmi.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ / order direction and set-aside the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Korea.

¶23

10.2 Cost of the petition may also be allowed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶24

10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed .”

¶25

Mr. Shishir Dixit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the advertisement date 25.05.2007 issued by respondent No.6/Gram Panchayat Taragawan, Block Baikunthpur, District Korea, t he present petitioner along with other eligible candidates applied for the post of Panchayatkarmi. He would further submit that the candidature of the petitioner was found suitable, therefore, his name was recommended for appointment to the post of Panchayatkarmi in a resolution passed by respondent No.6 dated 21.06.2007. He would also submit that WPS No. 5013 of 2007 was preferred by one Bhagwat Kumar, challenging the resolution dated 21.06.2007, and the petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to bring all these facts to the knowledge of the concerned Collector. He would contend that when the matter was pending before the concerned Collector, unfortunately, the petitioner was roped in a false case under Section 498 – A of the IPC, therefore, by the resolution dated 01.09.2007, the earlier resolution dated 21.06.2007 was kept in abeyance, including the appointment of the petitioner which was affirmed by the Collector, Korea. He would also contend that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges vide order dated 22.10.2011 and he moved an application before respondent No.6 to issue the order of appointment and in turn, respondent No. 6 forwarded

¶26

3 / 4

¶27

the same to respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Korea, but no heed was paid. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred WPS No. 2395 of 2013 before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 6 to consider the grievance of the petitioner as to whether he can be appointed. He would argue that the request made by respondent No. 6 was turned down by respondent No. 4 on the ground that the rules with regard to the appointment of Panchayatkarmi have been amended, therefore, no appointment can be provided to the petitioner. He would lastly state that the decision taken by respondent No. 4 was erroneous as he was selected for the aforesaid post prior to the amendment of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Sewa (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Samanya Sharte) Niyam, 1995 (for short, the Rules, 1995) and a resolution was also passed in his favour, but on account of some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner was not recommended for the promotion.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents would submit that though earlier, a resolution was passed in favour of the petitioner, no appointment order was issued and on the basis of said resolution, no right accrued in favour of the. They would further submit that the petitioner approached the authority concerned in accordance with the Rules, 1995 which had already been repealed, the rules with regard to appointment and service conditions were framed on 29.08.2008 and Zila Panchayat has been made appointing authority of Panchayat Karmi; thus, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents.

¶30

Earlier, on 21.06.2007, a resolution was passed in favour of the petitioner as he was found suitable for the appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi. Prior to the issuance of the appointment order by respondent No.6/Gram Panchayat, Taragawan, he was roped in a

¶31

4 / 4

¶32

criminal case, and the resolution dated 21.06.2007 was kept in abeyance vide a fresh resolution dated 01.09.2007. Later on, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur vide judgment dated 22.10.2011 delivered in a Criminal Case No. 288/11, he approached respondent No.6 to issue an appointment order to the post of Panchayat Karmi in his favour on the basis of earlier resolution dated 25.05.2007, but at that time, power vested with the Zila Panchayat to provide appointment of Panchayat Karmi as the earlier order dated 12.12.1995 wherein, the Gram Panchayat had the authority to appoint Panchayat Karmi was repealed vide order dated 29.08.2008.

¶33

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is claiming appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi based on the resolution dated 25.05.2007 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Taragawan, his claim is not sustainable, as the power to appoint Panchayat Karmi is vested with the Zila Panchayat. The State Government, after repealing the order dated 12.12.1995, in the exercise of the power vested under Section 70(1) read with Section 69(1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, framed rules regarding appointment and service conditions on 29.08.2008. As per the said order, under Clause-4, the appointing authority for Panchayat Karmi would be the Zila Panchayat.

¶34

Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶35

The petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court if cause of action arises.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶38

Nadim

Ritesh Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ritesh Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagi Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramprasad Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. And Anr.

Ku. Sangeeta Sahu Vs State Govt. Of C.g. and Ors.

Saroj Kumar Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ram Prakash Choudhary Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sarita Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.