The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of procedural compliance and adherence to the Rules framed for the appointment of Kotwars.

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

1. Petitioner-Am Singh has challenged the validity of order dated 29th March, 2005 passed in Revenue Appeal No. 680/A-56/2003-2004 by the Board of Revenue, CG, Bilaspur (Annexure P-4). By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 31-12-2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Balod, District Durg in Case No. 83/A-56/1999-2000 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:

Ghanshyam Mahar, husband of Respondent No. 2 herein, was Kotwar of Village Sanodh, Tehsil Gurur, District Durg (CG). In the year 1996 a show-cause notice was issued to him for various irregularities and misconduct. He was suspended and ultimately, he was removed from the post of Kotwar by the Naib Tehsildar, Gurur. He challenged his order before the Sub Divisional Officer, the Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior. His order of removal was throughout upheld. Thereafter he filed W.P. No. 3472/2000 before the High Court but the said writ petition was also dismissed vide order dated 7-7-2005. On account of removal of Ex-Kotwar the vacancy of Kotwar occurred and the concerned Tehsildar started the process of appointment of new Kotwar. He called applications for appointment by issuing Isthaar on 27-5-96. This was done vide Revenue Case No. 12-A-56 year 1996-97. On account of interim stay granted in the matter of Ghanshyam Mahar, the proceedings of the said revenue case were stayed. However, when the interim stay became ineffective, the concerned Tehsildar, instead of continuing with the earlier case, issued a fresh Isthaar and called the fresh applications. A fresh case bearing No. 1A-56 year 1998-1999 was registered. The second Isthaar was issued on 8-2-99. The proceedings of this case was also stayed on account of some order passed in the proceeding filed by Ghanshyam Mahar against his removal. When the second stay also stands vacated, the Tehsildar issued 3rd Isthaar on 1-7-99. In the first two Isthaars, issued by the concerned Tehsildar, Petitioner-Am Singh was not a candidate. However, he became a candidate after issuance of 3rd Isthaar. The Tehsildar examined rival claims of the candidates, and by an order dated 30-6-2000 passed in Revenue Case No. 1A-56 year 1998-1999 appointed the Petitioner as Kotwar of Village Sanodh, Tehsil Gurur, District Durg. This order was challenged by Respondent No. 2 before the Sub Divisional Officer by filing Revenue Appeal No. 83-A/56 years 1999-2000. The Sub Divisional Officer found that there was procedural irregularity in appointment of the Petitioner and the

Petitioner was not a candidate at the initial stage, because he had not attained the age of 21 years at that time, therefore, the order passed by the Tehsildar was set aside. The Petitioner challenged the said order before the Board of Revenue but the Board also took similar view and upheld the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. It is against this order, passed by the Board of Revenue, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Mr. Anand Dadariya, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, argued that the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and Board of Revenue are not in accordance with the Rules, therefore, the 2 orders be set aside and the order passed by the Tehsildar be upheld. He submitted that the Tehsildar was right in procedure in issuance of various Isthaars, therefore, the findings recorded by the above 2 authorities are erroneous. He further argued that the Petitioner was most suitable candidate among the others including Respondent No. 2. Therefore, he was rightly appointed by Tehsildar. He also argued that since the husband of Respondent No. 2 was removed on account of misconduct, therefore, Respondent No. 2 was not entitled to be appointed as Kotwar in view of the provisions of Rule 4(2) framed for the appointment of Kotwars.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Mishra and Ms. Sudha Agrawal, learned Counsel appe