Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Gopal Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 4 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 6491 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
RAM GOPAL PATEL S/O SHRI BHAGWAN CHARAN
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PANCHAYAT KARMI, GRAM PANCHAYAT KHAJWA,
RAJNAGAR, CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT AND
RURAL DEV. DEPT., VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COM M IS S ION ER SAGAR DIVISION, SAGAR,
DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR, DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANPAD
PANCHAYAT, RAJNAGAR, DISTT. CHHATAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MANGAL DEEN S/O ANTU ANURAGI, R/O
KHAJWA, RAJNAGAR, CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. GRAM PANCHAYAT KHAJUA THR. SARPANCH
GRAM PANCHAYAT KHAJUA, RAJNAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
7. GORISHANKER PATEL S/O RAMNATH PATEL, R/O
KHAJWA RAJNAGAR, CHHATAPUR (MADHYA
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH PRADESH)
Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:40 IST
2
8. COMMISSIONER, NISHAKTJAN MADHYA
PRADESH, COMMUNITY HALL NEW MARKET, T.T.
NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 3)
(BY SHRI NIKHIL TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by one Ram Gopal Patel being aggrieved of
orders dated 15/04/2010 and 17/04/2012 passed in Case No.696 and 321-
A/89/2009-10 respectively by Additional Collector, Chhatarpur in the matter of
Mangaldeen Vs. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat and another by Additional
Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in Revision Case No.321-A/89-2009-10
(Ramgopal Patel Vs. Gorishankar Patel and others).
Brief facts leading to the present case are that an advertisement was
issued on 10/08/2007 for appointment of Panchayat Karmi. A merit list was
prepared but without taking into consideration the provisions contained in the
Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995. Thus, Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution, being
Resolution No.3 providing for reservation of one post for appointment of a
differently abled person as Panchayat Karmi. This resolution makes a mention
of one order passed by Chief Commissioner, Disabilities, Govt. of India and
State Commissioner, Disabilities, Government of Madhya Pradesh as is
contained in Annexure-P/8 dated 18/08/2007.
Signature Not Verified
In terms of this reservation, resolution No.4 was passed by Gram
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Pancnayat recommending appointment of petitioner who happens to be a
Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:40 IST
differently abled person as per disability certificate Annexure-P/7 available on
record certifying that Ramgopal Patel S/o Bhagwan Charan Patel suffers from
55% lower limb left disability.
This resolution dated 02/10/2007 of the Gram Panchayat was challenged
before Additional Collector, Chhatarpur by one of the candidates namely
Mangaldeen where Additional Collector set aside aside the resolution of Gram
Panchayat, Khajwa so also the consequential order appointing him as Part Time
Panchayat Karmi thereafter directing the Gram Panchayat, Kajwa to issue
appointment order in favour of person securing highest position in the merit list
dated 02/10/2007.
This order was challenged before Additional Commissioner, Sagar
Division, Sagar by the present petitioner but vide order dated 17th April, 2012
Additional Commissioner held that as per the provisions contained in M.P.
Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, revision is not
maintainable, therefore, dismissed the revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner reading from order dated 18/08/2007
contained in Annexure-P/8, submits that Chief Commissioner, Disabilities, held
that the recruitments which are made in Panchayats where funds are provided
by the Central Government or the State Government, it is mandatory to have
3% reservation for disabled persons. It further held that compliance of the
provisions contained in Section 33 of the Act of 1995 is mandatory, therefore,
advised the State Government to provide reservation for Panchayat Karmies
upto the extent of 3% and thereafter re-advertise the posts. In case of its
inability to do so, same be notified within 30 days to the Chief Commissioner.
Signature Not Verified
SAN It is submitted that thereafter Commissioner, Disabilities, vide order dated
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:40 IST
16/08/2010 (Annexure-P/9) directed that State Government should form a
cluster of Panchayat Karmi at District/Block level and should ensure reservation
for differently abled persons. In view of such facts, it is submitted that
resolution of the Gram Panchayat making a reservation in favour of a differently
abled persons for Gram Panchayat, Khajwa, Tah. Rajnagar, Distt. Chhatarpur
cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary calling for interference. Thus, the
impugned orders being contrary to the principles of law may be set aside.
Learned counsel for respondent No.6 Shri Nikhil Tiwari, in its turn,
submits that it is evident from order (Annexure-P/9) itself that Chief
Commissioner, Disabilities, held that for recruitment of Panchayat Karmi a
cluster should be treated to be in existence at the level of District/Block and
then reservation should be extended.
It is submitted that unless that cluster is formed reservation applying
principle of rota quota, no indulgence could have been shown in the matter and
since admittedly State Government has not caused any reservation in the matter
of recruitment of Panchayat Karmi, impugned orders are just and correct and
do not call for any interference.
Shri Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel, further submits that in fact in the first
round petitioner was not even a candidate as is apparent from the resolution
No.2 contained in Annexure-P/5 where name of Gorishankar is mentioned at the
top and there is no mention of name of present petitioner Ram Gopal Patel out
of total 23 applications which were received by the Gram Panchayat. It is
submitted that subsequently petitioner had made an application after influencing
Gram Panchayat and obtained a resolution in his favour which is illegal,
arbitrary and has, thus, been rightly set aside by the authority of Additional
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Collector. It is further submitted that petitioner has manipulated Annexure-P/4
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:40 IST
inasmuch as it does not contain signatures of any responsible person. Name of
petitioner is mentioned at serial No.11 whereas in resolution No.2 contained in
Annexure-P/5 name of the petitioner is not mentioned at all. Further petitioner
had secured only 40.2% marks in his High School, therefore, he is not at all
meritorious to be considered for appointment.
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State,
submits that same Commissioner, Disabilities, admitted vide Annexure-R/1
dated 28/07/2010 and communicated this fact to the petitioner that as per the
General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan circular
No.C-3-5-99/3/One dated 24th February, 2000 roster is not applicable to single
isolated post, therefore, filed the case of the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted
that once Commissioner, Disabilities, himself admitted that there was no
justification in providing reservation on the post of single isolated post of
Panchayat Karmi meant for each of Panchayats, then petitioner cannot be
allowed to take advantage of reservation which is not otherwise provided in the
rules. .
Shri Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his turn, submits that he
has filed a rejoinder to point out that appointment of a Panchayat Karmi is to be
made in accordance with the requirement of circular (Annexure-P/13). It is
submitted that there is no scope for indulgence of the State Authorities.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that qualifications have been given in Annexure-P/13. It
provides for selection on the basis of merits. Selection process is given in
para-4. Thus, when there is no provision for reservation for a handicapped
Signature Not Verified
SAN
person, then petitioner, though being less meritorious than private respondent,
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
could not have been appointed as a Panchayat Karmi on the strength of some
Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:40 IST
vague orders of Commissioner, Disabilities which too has been put to rest vide
Annexure-R/1 after realizing its mistake. Thus, when there is no provision for
reservation of a Panchayat Karmi, then there could not have been any
reservation in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Indra Sawhney and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp (3)
SCC 217 so also the law laid down by this High Court in Lallu Kol Vs. State
of M.P. & others, 2008(4) M.P.L.J. 418. The same is the ratio of orders of
Division Bench of this High Court in W.A. No.251/2013 (Vinod Kumar Vs.
State of M.P. and others) decided on 27/08/2014.
Thus, when there is no provision for reservation and admittedly minus
reservation, petitioner is not meritorious to secure position in the merit list as
per the scheme for appointment of a Panchayat Karmi, impugned orders when
tested on this touchstone cannot be faulted with as did not suffer from any
illegality or arbitrariness. In fact, though petitioner has filed a rejoinder but has
not challenged the order (Annexure-R/1) and in absence of any challenge to
order (Annexure-R/1), the very foundation of the case of the petitioner being the
order of the Commissioner, Disabilities, being dislodged, no relief can be
extended in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:40 IST
