JUDGMENT

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. - Heard.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh on 8.1.2007 rejecting the petitioner's Revision Application, which, in turn, was preferred against the order passed by the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar on 25.4.2006 (Annexure P/4), whereby, the Appellate Order passed by the SDO(R), Bhilaigarh on 14.6.2004 has been set-aside and the order passed by the Tehsildar, Kasdol on 20.3.2003 was maintained. By the original order passed by the Tehsildar in exercise of powers under Section 230 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short "the Code"), respondent No.4 Jitendra Kumar was appointed on the post of Kotwar of Gram Panchayat, Pisid, Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar.

3. Upon occurrence of vacancy in the office of Kotwar of the concerned Gram Panchayat on account of Kotwar Vikram Das Manikpuri having suffered incapacity to function due to paralytic attack, the proceeding for appointment of new Kotwar was initiated. Respondent No.4 - Jitendra Kumar was initially appointed as temporary Kotwar on 30.9.2002. Thereafter, in the proceedings for appointment of new Kotwar, the Tehsildar considered candidature of 10 persons including petitioner Laxmin Bai and respondent No.4 Jitendra Kumar. The petitioner claimed appointment being the near relative (wife) of former Kotwar, whereas, respondent No.4 claimed appointment on merits. In a duly drawn proceeding, the Tehsildar obtained recommendation of the Gram Panchayat, which was made in favour of respondent No.4 vide Annexure R/4-1. The Tehsildar having considered the recommendation and having considered the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Rules regarding Appointment, Punishment and Removal of Kotwar and their Duties framed under Section 230 of the Code, concluded that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 do not suffer from any disqualification as mentioned in Rule 2, therefore, both are suitable and qualified for appointment, however, on the strength of the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat in favour of respondent No.4 -Jitendra Kumar, he was offered appointment vide order dated 20.03.2003. Against this order, Petitioner Laxmin Bai preferred an appeal before the SDO(R), Bhilaigarh, which was allowed on 14.6.2004. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by respondent No.4 Jitendra Kumar, which was allowed by the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar on 25.4.2006. Thereafter, against the order dated 25.4.2006, the petitioner preferred a Revision Application, which was rejected by the Board of Revenue vide the impugned order dated 8.1.2007.

4. Mr. Yash Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is not disqualified to hold the office of Kotwar as she is not covered under any of the category mentioned in Rule 2, therefore, the petitioner being the near relative (wife) of the former Kotwar, should have been preferred for offering appointment. He would also submit that the recommendation made in favour of respondent No.4 was by the Gram Panchayat and not by the Gram Sabha, therefore, the said recommendation has wrongly been invoked to prefer respondent No.4.

5. Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. KK Singh, learned Government Advocate would argue that under the Rules applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, the resolution is required to be passed by the Gram Panchayat and not by the Gram Sabha. The amendment to Rule 4 necessitating resolution by a Gram Sabha has been introduced by the Notification issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh after 1.11.2000, therefore, the said amendment is not applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh. Mr. Agarwal would further argue that the petitioner and respondent No.4 being equally qualified in terms of the Rules for appointment to the office of Kotwar, the Tehsildar has rightly referred to the resolution in favour of respondent No.4 to offer him appointment.

6. Rule 4 of the R