The central legal point established in the judgment is the lack of authority to set aside the resolution of the Gram Panchayat under Section 85, the absence of provisions for appeal or revision against the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, and the incorrect interpretation of the circular of the State Government.

K.K. Trivedi, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has called in question the order dated 25.01.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pushprajgarh, District Anooppur and the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Collector, Anooppur, alleging that the Sub Divisional Officer having no jurisdiction to set aside the resolution of the Gram Panchayat has wrongly allowed the complaint and set aside resolution of Gram Panchayat and the appeal filed against such an order has been dismissed, therefore, the Petitioner is required to file this writ petition. The reliefs claimed are that the Petitioner, who has rightly been selected and appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi, be permitted to continue on his post after the quashment of the impugned orders.

2. The facts giving rise in the present writ petition in brief are that on 10.08.2007 a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat and Petitioner was selected for his appointment as Panchayat Karmi. The said resolution was passed considering the candidature of the Petitioner as also the other persons, who made applications pursuant to the advertisement issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat. 'A complaint was made before the Sub Divisional Officer that such a resolution was illegally passed and, therefore, the same was not to be implemented. However, the fact remains that the Petitioner was already appointed vide order dated 10.08.2007 and he joined on his post on 13.08.2007 and started working. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pushprajgarh passed an order on 25.01.2008 considering the complaint made and holding that the selection of the Petitioner was not in accordance to the instructions issued by the State Government on 13.08.2007, therefore, he set aside the resolution dated 10.08.2007 and remitted back the matter to the Gram Panchayat for making selection afresh.

3. An appeal was preferred by the Petitioner against this order before the Collector. However, even after calling the records, the appeal of the Petitioner was not heard on the question of grant of interim relief, therefore, he was required to file a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 7794/2008. The said writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2008 and this Court granted a direction to maintain status quo till consideration of the application of the Petitioner for grant of stay. The Petitioner was thus notified as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat pursuant to his order of appointment and was permitted to work on his post. Later on the appeal of the Petitioner has been dismissed holding that the Sub Divisional Officer has rightly passed the order.

4. The writ petition filed before this Court was entertained and an interim protection was granted to the Petitioner on 15.12.2009. The Respondents have entered appearance and have filed their response. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have simply said that the circular was issued by the State Government categorically directing that the selection of Panchayat Karmi was to be made only on the basis of merit obtained on the basis of marks secured in the qualifying examination. The Petitioner could not have been selected in view of this instruction and, therefore, there was nothing wrong committed by the Sub Divisional Officer in setting aside illegal resolution of the Gram Panchayat. The Respondent No. 3 has filed similar return. The Respondent No. 5 has filed the return contending that illegal selection of Petitioner was done de-hors instructions of the State Government and relying on various decisions of this Court it has been said that selection of Petitioner as Panchayat Karmi was bad in law. Thus, it is contended that right action was taken, orders were passed and, therefore, there was no need to interfere in the orders passed by the competent authority by this Court exercising extraordinary power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the par