[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammed Haseen vs State Of M.P on 21 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2595
1 WP-1304-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1304 of 2012
MOHAMMED HASEEN
Versus
STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
Shri D.S.Raghuvanshi - learned counsel for respondent No.3.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):-
"i- The order annexure P/1 and P/2 may kindly be
quashed and respondents may kindly be directed to
appoint the petitioner who is most meritorious candidate
on the post of Panchayatkarimi.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly
be granted."
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that applications were
invited for appointment to the post of Panchayatkarmi on 06.09.2007 and
were considered on 30.09.2009, in which the petitioner was found to be the
more meritorious. The respondents granted appointment to respondent No.5
on the basis of majority, vide Annexure P/2. It is further submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2595
2 WP-1304-2012
petitioner obtained 47% marks in Class X and 60% marks in Class XII,
whereas respondent No.5 obtained 52% marks in Class X. It is further
submitted that the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.5. It is
further submitted that a less meritorious candidate, i.e., respondent No.5, was
appointed to the post of Panchayatkarmi, whereas the said appointment
ought to have been given to the petitioner.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per
the policy dated 13.08.2007 (Annexure P/5) for appointment , the minimum
qualification prescribed is 10+2 system. The petitioner obtained 47% marks
in Class X, whereas respondent No.5 secured 52% marks in Class X.
Considering the merit and in accordance with the said policy, respondent
No.5 was appointed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. A perusal of the record reveals that the selection to the post of
Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) is governed by the policy dated 13.08.2007
(Annexure P/5). As per the said policy, the merit position for appointment to
the post of Panchayat Karmi is to be determined on the basis of marks
obtained in Class X. Admittedly, the petitioner is less meritorious in
comparison to respondent No.5, as the petitioner secured 47% marks
whereas respondent No.5 secured 52% marks.
6. The relevant part of the order dated 6.11.2009 passed by the
Division Bench in W.A No.601/2009 [ Om Prakash v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others] are quoted below for ready reference and convenience:
"Appellant was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi by the Gram
Panchayat in question. Appointment of the appellant was done on
the basis of a resolution passed on 23.2.2006, by which ignoring
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2595
3 WP-1304-2012
the merit of other candidates, by majority present in the meeting
and voting/lifting of hand, the appellant was appointed.
Respondent No.6, who had obtained 61.40% marks in the
qualifying examination, in comparison to 41.06% marks obtained
by the appellant, challenged the appointment mainly on the ground
that ignoring the merit a less meritorious candidate cannot be
appointed by the majority present, and for the said purpose places
reliance on a circular dated 27.1.2006, passed by the State
Government, wherein it was stipulated that appointment of a
Panchayat Karmi has to be done on merit and not by majority of
the persons voting in favour of a less meritorious candidate. The
revisional authority namely - the Commissioner and the learned
writ Court found that ignoring the merit, appointment in question
has been made by passing of a resolution, which is not permissible
after the circular dated 27.1.2006 came into force, interfered into
the matter and for doing so have relied upon a judgment of a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 601/2009 [Om
Prakash Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others].
Having considered the submissions made, we are of the
considered view that the writ Court has not committed any error in
the matter. The circular dated 27.1.2006 clearly lays down
thatappointment has to be made on the merit of a candidate and by
passing of a resolution by majority ignoring the merit appointment
cannot be made. This Circular came into force on 27.1.2006, the
resolution was passed on 23.2.2006, after the circular came into
force and, therefore, in interfering with the matter no error has
been committed by the revisional authority and the Writ Court
warranting any further consideration.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
7. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Suresh S/o
Laxman Rathod vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Barwani and
others, 2011(4) M.P.L.J. 717 wherein it is held as under:-
"9. So far as the appellant's contention that he could have been
appointed as Panchayat Karmi on the basis of the majority of
votes in view of the Circular dated 27-1-2006 which was
prevailing at the time of making of his appointment is concerned,
we find no merit in this submission. In the circular dated 27-1-
2006 it was provided that the list of all the applications received
by the Gram Panchayat for the said post was to be prepared by the
Gram Panchayat on the basis of seniority and merit. It further
provided that after preparation of such list, the eligible candidate,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2595
4 WP-1304-2012
as per seniority of such list, was to be appointed. Therefore, in our
considered view as per the Scheme of appointment of Panchayat
Karmi the merit was required to have been observed even as per
the Circular dated 27-1-2006 which was in vogue when the
appellant was appointed. The contention of the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant that in making the appointments prior to
the Circular dated 13-8-2007 there was no necessity of observing
of merit is, therefore, wholly misconceived. We find that in the
present case ignoring the merit the appointment was made by the
Gram Panchayat only on the basis of majority of votes. In such
circumstances the appellant's appointment which was made giving
complete go bye to the merit could not have been sustained and
the same has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge
and the matter has rightly been remanded to the Gram Panchayat
for passing fresh resolution on the basis of merit."
8. If the aforesaid settled principle is applied to the case in hand then it
is apparently clear that no such appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi
can be made ignoring the merits of the candidates. It is a settled position that
only the minimum qualification prescribed in the policy/advertisement is to
be considered for determining merit. The petitioner is less meritorious in
comparison to respondent No.5, as the petitioner secured 47% marks
whereas respondent No.5 secured 52% marks, no case is made out for
appointment of the petitioner to the post of Panchayat Karmi.
9. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
