Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogendra Singh Jadon vs State Of M.P. on 4 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7817
1 WP-2329-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 4 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2329 of 2010
YOGENDRA SINGH JADON
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Sing Raghuvansi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta- Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Ravi Rahul- Advocate for the respondent no.6.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 10.03.2010
(Annexure P/1) whereby, the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the
appointment of respondent no.6 has been decided.
[2]. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that pursuant to the
advertisement issued by Gram Panchayat Karariya, District Vidisha (M.P.), the
petitioner as also the respondent no.6 alongwith certain other candidates applied for the
post of Panchayat Karmi. The Gram Panchayat held its meeting on 26.12.2007 and
considered the candidature of all the candidates. A perusal of the minutes of meeting
filed as Annexure P/4, it is gathered that the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.01 in the
merits-list. At No.2, the name of respondent no.6 finds place. Since, the Gram
Panchayat failed to make appointment within the prescribed time, the Collector in
exercise of its powers conferred under Section 86(2) of The M.P. Panchayat Raj
Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 appointed respondent no.6 as Panchayat
Karmi vide order dated 19.05.2008.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7817
2 WP-2329-2010
[3]. The petitioner being aggrieved by the appointment of respondent no.6,
challenged her appointment by filing a revision before the Commissioner Bhopal
Division, Bhopal. The revision has been decided by the Additional Commissioner vide
impugned order dated 10.03.2010. In respect of the petitioner, it has been found that
since as per the Certificate filed alongwith his application, the petitioner is the resident
of village & Tehsil Vidisha. He has been denied appointment as he is not the resident
of Gram Panchayat Karariya. In respect of respondent no.6, the learned Additional
Commissioner remitted the matter to the Collector for examining as to whether the
respondent no.6 is the resident of Gram Panchayat Karariya or not and to pass a fresh
order in accordance with law. The petitioner has challenged this order passed by the
Additional Commissioner in the instant writ petition.
[4]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is in fact the resident of
Gram Panchayat Karariya which is evident from various documents filed by him
alongwith the writ petition. However, he concedes that alongwith his application, he
filed the certificate of his resident of village & Tehsil Vidisha. Thus, the conclusion of
Additional Commissioner that the petitioner is not the resident of Gram Panchayat
Krariya cannot be found fault with as the same is based upon the documents which the
petitioner has filed alongwith his application.
[5]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being the resident of the
same Gram Panchayat, was not the mandatory condition and it is only when the two
candidates having the same merits, a preference is given to the local resident of the
Gram Panchayat. He relies upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Smt. Sarita Patel Vs. Draupati Bai reported in 2019 (3) MPLJ 421
wherein, this Court in para-21 held as under;
"21. In the present case, the petitioner is admittedly more
meritorious then the appellant. In the Circular/order dated
27.01.2006 issued by the State Government, it has been made clear
to the appointing authority that the appointment on the post of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7817
3 WP-2329-2010
Panchayat Karmi is to be made on the basis of merit. In the case of
Suresh S/o Laxman Rathod Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Panchayat, Barwani and others [2011(4) MPLJ717], it is held that
appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi has to be made
strictly on merit. The same view has been reiterated by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 194/2016
(Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) decided on 26.07.2017.
Thus, the appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi (Sachiv)
has to be made on the basis of merit and a preference can only be
given to a local resident if two candidates are equal on merit."
[6]. In view of law laid down by the Division Bench, it is evident that the
appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi in a Gram Panchayat has to be made
strictly in accordance with merits. Admittedly, the petitioner was found to be more
meritorious and was placed at Sr. No.01 in the merit-list prepared by the Gram
Panchayat. Thus, denial of appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi to the
petitioner on the ground that he is not the local resident of Gram Panchayat Karariya is
found to be unsustainable.
[7]. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 informed that her appointment was
also canceled by the Additional Commissioner vide impugned order. The respondent
no.6 has not been appointed thereafter on the said post. It is thus not clear as to whether
anybody else has been appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat
Karariya or not. The matter is therefore remitted to the Collector, District Vidisha to
reconsider the entire matter and take a fresh decision with regard to the appointment of
petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat Karariya in accordance
with law.
[8]. In view of aforesaid, instant writ petition standsdisposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
