Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoharlal Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51559
1 WP-13196-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13196 of 2024
MANOHARLAL YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Pathak - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Ms. Amrit Kaur Ruprah- Advocate for the respondent No.7.
Shri Rahul Rawat- Advocate for the respondent No.8
ORDER
By way of this petition, challenge is made to orders Annexures P-20
and P-23 passed by the Sub-Division Officer and the Chief Executive
Officer, Zila Panchayat respectively whereby the appointment of respondent
No.8 has been upheld.
2. The background facts are that the Gram Panchayat somewhere in
the year 2006 had advertised one post of Panchayat Karmi and the petitioner
was appointed by majority of votes vide resolution Annexure P-1 dated 6-5-
2006. Against the said appointment of the petitioner, there was certain round
of litigation and ultimately the Collector vide order Annexure P-8 dated
18.03.2010 held that there has been no consideration of applications of other
candidates and therefore the resolution of the Gram Panchayat does not seem
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51559
2 WP-13196-2024
to be proper. The Collector directed that fresh meeting of the General
Committee of the Gram Panchayat be held and there should be consideration
on all the applications and the fresh consideration process be conducted on
already received applications.
3. The petitioner challenged the said order upto this Court but he was
unsuccessful in the said challenge and those directions became final upto
writ appeal before this Court. In the intervening period, the Gram Panchayat
passed a resolution Annexure P-12 dated 07.06.2010 which is two line order
mentioning that the present members of the Gram Panchayat have decided
to appoint the respondent No.8. Apart from that, there is no other
consideration made in that resolution.
4. The challenge to the said resolution and consequential
appointment of the petitioner in pursuance to said resolution has been
rejected vide Annexure P-20 and P-23 and in such circumstances, the
petitioner is before this Court. There are in between various chequered
rounds of litigation, and all such rounds of litigation are not being
mentioned to maintain brevity in the order.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has taken a preliminary
objection about availability of alternative remedy, however, considering the
long pendency of the litigation since the year 2006 and interpretation of
policy Annexure R-8-1 being involved in the matter, therefore, this Court
deems it fit to give quietus to the controversy conclusively and not to remit
the matter to avail the alternative remedy before the Commissioner.
Therefore, the objection as to alternative remedy is discarded.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51559
3 WP-13196-2024
6. Upon hearing the rival parties it is seen that the real reason for
controversy is that whether upon remand by the Collector which was
confirmed up to the writ appeal, the Gram Panchayat could have appointed
the respondent No.8 without any consideration of merits of the rival
candidates, only on the basis of majority of votes and the similar type of
illegality which was there in resolution in favour of the petitioner vide
Annexure P-1 could have been repeated by passing a fresh resolution
Annexure P-12 in favour of respondent No.8.
7. The counsel for the respondent No.8 while relying on the
judgment of Coordinate Bench in case of Kalpnath Mishra Vs. State of M.P.
reported in 2012(1) MPLJ 45 and Banwari Lal Vs. State of M.P. reported in
2011(4) MPLJ 509 had vehemently argued that the system of consideration
of merits was introduced by a circular dated 13.08.2007 by the State
Government and since the selection process in question was initiated in the
year 2006, therefore the selection was only to be by majority of votes. There
was no requirement to consider the relative merits of the candidates.
8. Considered the aforesaid arguments.
9 . The relevant policy of the appointment of the Panchayat Karmi
which was in vogue prior to issuance of instructions dated 13.08.2007 had
the following provisions in the matter of qualification and selection process:-
3. अहताएं:
3.1 उ मीदवार 10+2 णाली के अ तगत क ा दसवीं या हाई कूल
सट फकेट पर ा उ ीण होगा।
3.2 उ मीदवार क यूनतम आयु 18 वष होगी।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51559
4 WP-13196-2024
3.3 संबंिधत ाम पंचायत उ व णत अहताओं के अलावा अ य
वांछनीय अहता ताव पा रत कर स मिलत कर सकेगी।
3.4 अनुसिू चत जाित, जनजाित, पछड़ा वग तथा म हला उ मीदवार
को ाथिमकता द जावेगी।
3.5 ऐसा उ मीदवार यथासंभव थानीय हो। इससे काय कर पाने म
आसानी होगी।
3.6 ाम पंचायत ारा िन द काय को संपा दत करने हे तु
उ मीदवार के पास पया समय उपल ध हो, यह सुिन त कया
जाए।
4. चयन या :
4.1 पंचायत कम क िनयु के िलए आवेदन प आमं त करने
क सूचना ाम पंचायत के सरपंच ारा जार क जावेगी तथा यह
सूचना ाम पंचायत कायालय, जनपद पंचायत कायालय एवं
तहसील कायालय के सूचना पटल पर कािशत क जायेगी।
4.2सूचना के काशन क ितिथ से 15 दन तक आवेदन-प पंचायत
कायालय म जमा कए जा सकगे।
4.3. आवेदन-प सादे कागज पर शै णक यो यता एवं जाित संबंधी
जानकार के साथ तुत कये जायगे।
4.4 सम त आवेदन-प ाम पंचायत क सामा य सभा के सम
वचाराथ तुत कये जायेगे। ाम पंचायत क सामा य सभा ा
आवेदन-प पर वचार कर उ मीदवार का चयन करे गी। एक
उ मीदवार का नाम ित ा सूची म रखेगी।
4.5 पंचायत अपने ताव के मा यम से ऐसी िनयु करे गी, ऐसी
िनयु िनधा रत समयाबिध के िलए पूणकािलक /अंशकािलक
अथवा सं वदा पर हो सकेगी। िनयु य को सरपंच ारा िनयु
प जार कया जावेगा। इसक ित मु य कायपालन अिधकार ,
जनपद पंचायत को रकाड हे तु भेजी जायेगी। इसम पंचायत कम
क सं जानकार द होगी। जनपद पंचायत म एक पंजी संधा रत
क जाकर तद वषयक व याँ रखी जावेगी।
4.6 य द चयिनत उ मीदवार िनयु प जार होने के 7 दन के
भीतर कायभार हण नह ं करता है तो ती ा सूची से अ य य
क िनयुियत क जा सकती है ।
10. It is evident from perusal of the said provision in the policy
that if there was intention of the State Government that it has to be a pick and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51559
5 WP-13196-2024
choose by the Gram Panchayat, then there would have been no provision to
call for applications and affixation of the notices of calling application on the
notice board of the Panchayat and with beat of drum.
11 . Relevant Clause 4.4 of the selection process which has been
pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent No.8 to mean that there
was no requirement of any consideration, in opinion of this Court, would
actually mean that the applications would be submitted before the Gram
Panchayat in its general meeting and the Panchayat would consider all the
applications and select one candidate.
12. No doubt it is true that there is no laid down system of
assessment of merits in the said Clause 3 & 4 of the instructions. However
clause 4.4 lays down that the Gram Panchayat in its General Body Meeting
would consider all the applications and select one candidate. It only means
that it would be open for the Gram Panchayat to arrive at its own modality of
consideration of relative merits of the candidates. The Gram Panchayat could
have given weightage to the personality of the candidate or could have given
weightage to the academic qualification of the candidate or to other criteria
being deemed fit and valid by the Gram Panchayat. In absence of the State
Government framing any assessment criteria, it is clear that it was the Gram
Panchayat alone which as per its own requirement could arrive at any
suitable assessment criteria. However the process since speaks about
'selection' does not mean any pick and choose only on basis of majority of
votes.
13. The selection of the petitioner vide Annexure P-1 was also by a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51559
6 WP-13196-2024
similar type of non-speaking resolution based upon majority of votes which
was set aside by the Collector and the same illegality has been perpetuated
by the fresh resolution Annexure P-12 which is also on basis of majority of
votes and does not contain any single ground that whether any comparative
assessment chart was prepared or that what is the merit or special attributes
or qualities of the respondent No.8 which the General body of the Gram
Panchayat was impressed with so as to select him. The resolution does not
speak about consideration of any other application but simply mentions that
General Body deems it fit to appoint respondent No.8.
14. Therefore, notwithstanding the selection being advertised prior to
13.08.2007, selection based on majority of votes cannot be given stamp of
approval. The State Government not having framed any system of
assessment it could have only meant that it was open for the Gram Panchayat
to arrive at its own system of assessment. However, the very assessment of
merit and qualifications could not have been dispensed with by the Gram
Panchayat for that purpose.
15. Let the consequential action of assessment of applicants who
applied in the process of 2006 be undertaken within 45 days and till that time
the person who is already working shall continue. Petition stands disposed
off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
nks
