1. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.3 .2010 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Competent Authority of the State Government allowing the revision filed by the 2nd respondent against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of his petition are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi vide resolution dated 12.4.2006 passed by the Gram Panchayat Walka, Tahsil Bhikangaon, District Khargone on the basis of the majority. The said resolution of appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi was assailed by the 2nd respondent before the Collector Khargone. The Collector Khargone vide order dated 21.3.2007 (Annexure P-9) recorded the finding that the resolution of the Panchayat appointing the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi is legal and just at the same time he also held that the said resolution Cannot be cancelled by him under the provisions of section 85 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhniyam. He accordingly dismissed the case filed by the 2nd respondent.

3. Aggrieved the 2nd respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 2365 of 2007 (s) before this Court challenging the order dated 21.3.2007 passed by Collector, Khargone. On 4.5.2007 this Court permitted the 2nd respondent to withdraw the petition with liberty to file appeal against the impugned order of the Collector within 30 days before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal No. 227/2006-07 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, Additional Commissioner, Indore Division vide order dated 28.9.2007 (Annexure P-12) held that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi by the Gram Panchayat on the basis of decision taken by majority of votes to be just and proper, as a result dismissed the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent.

4. The said order of Additional Commissioner was assailed by the 2nd respondent before the State Minister, Panchayat and Rural Development Department who is the competent Authority of the State Government for deciding the revision. The revision was allowed vide order dated 11.4.2008 (Annexure P-15). The order dated 11.4.2008 passed in revision was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2972/2008 (s). This Court noticing the fact that the said order dated 11.4.2008 was passed by the Competent Authority of the State Government was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, disposed of the writ petition with the consent of the parties vide order dated 22.10.2010 directing the said authority to decide the revision filed by the 2nd respondent afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

5. In pursuance to the order dated 22.10.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 2972 of 2008 (s) the Revisional Authority of the State Government gave opportunity of hearing to the parties and after considering their contentions set aside the order passed by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner and also cancelled the petitioner's appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. It has been held by the Revisional Authority that though the 2nd respondent was entitled for appointment having received more marks than the petitioner in the 10th standard exan1ination he has wrongly not been given appointment and the petitioner who received less marks was wrongly given appointment. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that his appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi could not have been challenged by the 2nd respondent before the Collector. He argued that this petition deserves to be allowed quashing the impugned order and by directing the second respondent to file an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. He submits that in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devidayal Raikwar v. State of M.P. and others, 2009 (I)