Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Banwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WA-1746-2019
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH,
AT JABALPUR
(DIVISION BENCH)
WA No. 1746 of 2019
ASHOK KUMAR BANWARI .....Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Coram :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Presence :
Shri Tony Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri B.D. Singh, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7.
ORDER (Oral)
(22-12-2021)
Per: Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice
The case of the petitioner is that he and others had applied for the
selection of the Gram Rozgar Sahayak of Village Pilikarar. The petitioner was
found selected having secured first position in the selection. The respondent
no.7 who was also an aspirant, objected to the appointment on the ground
that the writ petitioner's name was reflected in two voter lists, firstly in village
Palanpur District Hoshangabad and secondly, in the instant village Pilikarar
District Sehore. The Collector accepted the submission and set aside the
selection of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was filed
before the Commissioner who dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same
instant writ petition was filed.
The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of this court in W.P.
No. 23340 of 2018 (Smit Ranu Jharia Vs. State of M.P. and others) dated
20.03.2019 and held that only because his name was found in two voter lists
cannot be a ground to disentitle him for the job and hence quashed the order
of the Collector and the Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, respondent
no. 7 is before this court.
Signature Not Verified
SAN Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order passed by
Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH
PARIHAR
Date: 2021.12.23 11:37:42 IST
2 WA-1746-2019
the learned Single Judge is erroneous. Learned Single Judge has misread the
judgment on record. That admittedly the writ petitioner had applied in two
villages by producing two voter lists by stating that he was a resident of both
the villages. This is not acceptable. Hence, the learned Single Judge
committed an error.
The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 7;
namely the writ petitioner. He contends that no error has been committed by
the learned Single Judge that calls for any interference. That he has been
selected on the basis of merit. That he is far more meritorious than the
appellant. Even otherwise, there was a delay of almost five years in
challenging his appointment. Hence, the petition has been rightly considered
by the learned Single Judge. He further contends that so far as the scheme is
concerned there is no bar for a person's name to be found in two voter lists
or that he could be penalized for the same.
The learned Government Advocate for the State disputes the same and
contends that both the authorities have rightly passed the order. That the
order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable.
Heard the learned counsels.
The admitted facts are that the writ petitioner had applied for the post
of Gram Rozgar Sahayak of Village Pilikarar, Tehsil Budhini, District Sehore
as well as Palanpur District Hoshangabad. In both the places he has produced
voter lists of the respective constituencies indicating that he was a resident of
both the villages. The learned Single Judge relying on the judgment of this
court passed in Ranu Jharia (supra) held that there is no bar in the scheme for
the said purpose.
We have considered the scheme which has been filed as Annexure
P/22. Clause 2(a)3 thereof indicates that the person seeking appointment
should be a resident of the said village. Apparently, when the applications
were made the petitioner has stated that he is firstly a resident of village
Pilikarar when he applied for the said post therein and also when he applied
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH
PARIHAR
Date: 2021.12.23 11:37:42 IST
3 WA-1746-2019
for the post in village Palanpur, he produced the voter list of that area
indicating that he is a resident of that area. Since the scheme itself prohibits
the application of a person belonging to another area, the authorities were
justified in setting aside his appointment. Therefore, we find that the reliance
placed by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid judgment is misplaced.
Even assuming that a person's name is to be found in more than one voter
list, then that by itself does not debar him from applying for a particular
village from where he claims to be a resident, but however, he cannot claim to
be a resident of two different villages at the same point of time by taking
advantage of his name in the respective voter lists.
Under these circumstances, since the authorities have rightly passed the
order which is based on facts, we are of the considered view that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 20.09.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 26935 of 2018 is set aside.
The writ petition No. 26935 of 2018 is dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
MSP
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH
PARIHAR
Date: 2021.12.23 11:37:42 IST
