Full Judgment
1 Writ Appeal No. 1007/2012 22.2.2013 Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Shri Maninder S. Bhatti, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 6.
Heard.
Order dated 16.8.2012 passed in W.P. No. 6733/2011 by learned Single Judge is being assailed vide this Intra Court Appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005; whereby, the writ petition directed against the order dated 8.4.2011 by Additional Commissioner, who vide said order while setting aside the order of Collector, affirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hanumana, District Rewa, who set aside the selection process in which the appellant was appointed as Panchayat Karmi Patera, Janpad Panchayat Hanumana.
Proceedings for appointment of Panchayat Karmi was initiated with the issuance of notification on 28.7.2007. The applications were to be received from 28.7.2007 to 12.8.2007. That, though as per respondent No. 5 he submitted his application on 30.7.2007, the same was not considered and his candidature was not accepted. Instead, applications of three persons, viz., Suresh Prasad Patel (appellant herein). Rajesh 2 Prasad Patel and Rajkumar Patel were considered. Appellant who received 40.4% marks in High School Examination (10+2) was found fit for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi. His appointment was successfully challenged by respondent No. 5 vide W.P. No. 17024/2007 decided on 31.7.2008. The said order was; however, nullified by Division Bench of this Court vide Writ Appeal No. 919/2008 further directing that remedy of appeal before Sub Divisional Officer may be first invoked. The appeal preferred by respondent No. 5 before Sub Divisional Officer was allowed on 2.4.2009; whereon the Sub Divisional Officer taking into consideration the interpolation in the application filed by respondent No. 5 returned a finding that by said interpolation 30.7.2007 has been scribed to 12.8.2007. Accordingly, the entire selection process was set aside. Where against, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Collector.
The appellant authority taking into consideration the affidavit filed by Secretary, that, the application preferred by respondent No. 5 was received on 28.3.2007, reversed the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer whereagainst revision was preferred before Additional Commissioner, Rewa who vide order dated 8.4.2011 set aside the order passed by Collector and the restoration of the order of S.D.O Hanumana. The said order on being challenged in writ petition has been affirmed by impugned order.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and taking into consideration the fact that the Sub Divisional Officer while arriving at a conclusion that the date 3 in the application form preferred by respondent No. 5 was interpolated and having perused the relevant documents brought on record as Annexure P2, we are disposed of to affirm the finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer, who after taking into consideration the entire facts on record has returned the following finding: “ vih0 fot; 'kadjfeJ }kjk].iapk;r dehZ ds in ij].fu;qfDr ds fy,].izLrqr vkosnu i= dk].voyksdu fd;k x;k].vkosnu i= esa].vkosnu i= izLrqr djus ds fnukad esa dkV dj].ys[kk rkjh[k ds uhps ys[kk [khap dj].fnukad &23&8&07 ys[kk gS A rFkk ?.kks"k.kk i= esa Hkh].ys[kk rk0 ij].dkaV NkaV dj].mlds vkxs fn0&23&8&07 ys[kk gS A Md.vkosnu i= ij lfpo xzke iapk;r iVsgjk ds }kjk].vih0 ds vkosnu i= ds].izFke iqf"V fnukad&23&8&07 dks vkosnu i= izkIr gqvk].tks voS/k gS A dk Vhi vafdr fd;k x;k gS A iapk;r ds vfHkys[kk esa].layXu vih0 ds vkosnu i= ds lkFk].layXu ikorh dh Nk;k izfr ds vuqlkj].vih0 ds vkosnu i=].dh izkfIr dk].ikorh esa].fnukad 23&8&07].lfpo ds gLrk0 ds uhps ys[kk].gS].rkjh[k 23&8&07].mifjys[kk fd;k x;k gS A vih0 }kjk rdZ ds lkFk izLrqr fy LV dkxtkr ds lkFk layXu ikorh dh].Nk;k izfr ds vuqlkj].vih0 fot; 'kadj feJ ds].vkosnu i= dh izkfIr dk ikorh esa fnukad 30&7&07 ys[kk gS].ftlesa].lfpo ds gLrk0 ds uhps].fn0&30&7&07 ys[kk gS A bl rjg vih0 fot; 'kadj feJ ds].vkosnu i= esa vafdr frfFk].30&7&07 esa].mifjys[kk fd;k tkdj].23&8&07].ys[kk fd;k tkuk izrhr gkSr.gS A vih0 ds vkosnu i=].is'k djus dh ikorh ¼jlhn½ vuqlkj vih0 dk vkosnu i=].foKkiu esa vkosnu dh fu/kkZfjr frfFk].28&7&07 ls 12&8&07 ds vanj].fn0&30&7&07 dks izLrqr fd;k tkuk Li"V gkSr.gS A vih0 fot; 'kadj feJ dk gkbZ Ldwy cks MZ ijh{kk esa izkIrkad dk izfr'kr 61 gS tcfd xzk0 iapk;r iVsgjk }kjk fu;qDr iapk;r dehZ J.lqjs'k izlkn iversus ds gkbZ Ldwy ijh{kk dk izkIrkad 40-04 izfr'kr gS A bl izdkj 4 vih0 dk izkIrkad esfjV esa vf/kd gS aA vkSj fu;qDr iapk;r dehZ dk de gS A xzke iapk;r }kjk vih0 ds vkos0 i= dks lkekU; lHkk dh dk;Zokgh esa lfEefyr ugha fd;k x;k gS A ftlls xzke iapk0 iVsgjk esa fjDr iapk0 dehZ ds in dh iwfrZ ds fy, xzk0iapk0iVsgjk].}kjk dh xbZ fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh nks"kiw.kZ gksuk ik;k tkrk gS].tks fof/k ds foijhr gksus ls fLFkj j[kk tkuk izrhr ugha gkSr.gS A”.
Collector, in our considered opinion, was not correct in his approach while relying upon the affidavit given by the very same Secretary against whom the doubt has been raised of having interpolated the date in the application form. Additional Commissioner in turn is justified in accepting the cogent finding returned by Sub Divisional Officer which in our considered opinion has rightly been appreciated by learned Single Judge.
In view whereof, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge. However, before parting with the matter we express our concern about the manner in which the applications tendered by more meritorious candidate has been dwelt with in atPanchayat level causing interpolation for extending benefit to less meritorious. Therefore, it is directed that the Commissioner, Rewa division Rewa shall cause an inquiry into the entire affair through an officer No. below the rank of Additional Collector and take action against the officers/persons who are found guilty of such interpolation.
Let this be done within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order and outcome be communicated to the Registry of this Court to be kept in the record of this appeal.
5 With these observations the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no costs. (S.A. BOBDE) (SANJAY YADAV) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE VT