1. Heard

2. Briefly stated the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi vide resolution dt. 9.4.2007 passed by the Gram Panchayat Rajpura, Jila Panchayat Jeerapur, District Rajgarh. The said resolution was challenged by the seventh respondent Toofansingh before the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short SDO) Khilchipur in Appeal No.3 7B-121 /2006-07. However the appeal was dismissed by the SDO vide order dt. 2.6.2007 (Annexure P/6) holding it to be not maintainable. Aggrieved the seventh respondent preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora). The Additional Collector, Rajgarh vide order dt. 12.6.2007 (Annexure P/7) set aside the order passed by the SDO, holding that against the decision of the Gram Panchayat making appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi the appeal was maintainable before the S.D.O. As a result the order of SDO passed on 1.6.2007 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the SDO, Khilchipur for fresh decision.

3. The said order of the Additional Collector was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner in Revision No. 174/R/2006-07. The Additional Commissioner vide order dl. 5.6.2008 set aside the order dt. 2.6.2007 passed by the SDO as also the order dt. 12.6.2007 passed by the Additional Collector and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector for deciding the matter in view of the observations made by it in paragraph 11 of the order dt. 5.6.2008 (Annexure P/8).

4. The aforesaid order passed by the Additional Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4329/2008 (s). The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dt. 10.12.2008 by setting aside the order dt. 5.6.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner with a direction that any of the adverse remarks/observations made by the Additional Commissioner, for and against either of the parties, would not be taken into consideration by the Collector, in proceedings on remand, which have been ordered by the Additional Commissioner, vide order dt. 5.6.2008. It was clarified that the Collector shall adjudicate the controversy afresh, in accordance 'with law, and on the basis of the material available on record.

5. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court the Collector examined the matter and remitted it to the SDO for deciding the appeal on merits. In pursuance to the order passed by the Collector the SDO vide order dl. 5.6.2009 (Annexure P/10) gave opportunity of hearing to the parties and allowed the appeal filed by the seventh respondent Toofansigh holding that the decision taken by the Gram Panchayat for making appointment of the petitioner-Bherulal on the post of Panchayat Karmi has-not been taken on the basis of consideration of the respective merits but has been taken on the basis of majority. It has been observed by the SDO that the chart showing merits of the parties prepared by the Gram Panchayat clearly establishes that the seventh respondent Toofansigh secured 68.6% in tenth standard which was much more than the petitioner. In the circumstances the SDO directed the Gram Panchayat to issue appointment order in favour of the seventh respondent.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dt. 5.6.2009 passed by the SDO the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Rajgarh. The Additional Collector, Rajgarh vide order dl. 6.8.2009 passed in Revision No.57/ A-89/2008-09 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner holding that the seventh respondents who was having highest marks in the tenth standard was best suitable on merits for giving appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. In the circumstances the Additional Collector maintained the order passed by the SOO on 5.6.2009. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after passing of the order by this Court on 10.12.2008 the Collector, Rajgarh was required to decide the controversy involved in