1. Challenging the order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure P-l), passed by the Collector, Katni and the order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Before the Sub Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'SDO') and the Collector concerned, challenge was made by respondent No.5 to a resolution dated 17.3.2009, with regard to cancellation of his appointment made on the post of Panchayat Karmi. The petition is filed mainly on the ground that against the resolution (Annexure P-5), dated 17.3.2009, appeal before the S.D.O. was not maintainable and, therefore, the authorities having acted without jurisdiction, the entire order is unsustainable.

3. Facts that have come on record indicate that the Gram Panchayat issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi. Apart from various other persons, petitioner and respondent No.5 were candidates, vho had submitted their candidature for appointment to the post in question. Gam Panchayat passed a resolution on 6.9.2007 (Annexure P-3) and finding respondent No. 5- Manoj Kumar Dubey, to be more meritorious, he was recommended to be appointed to the post of Panchayat Karmi. In pursuance to the aforesaid resolution a separate order was passed on 7.9.2009 appointing him on the post of Panchayat Karmi. It seems that certain objections were raised by the petitioner and various other office bearers to the effect that the appointment of respondent No.5 to the Panchayat in question is illegal because the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Shri Bhushan @ Bhura Pathak, was related to respondent No.5 in as much as respondent No.5 was his brother-in-law. It was, therefore, alleged that the appointment is illegal. However, when nothing was done it is seen that the petitioner herein challenged the appointment made vide resolution dated 6.9.2007 and order dated 7.9.2007 before the SDO and the same was registered as Appeal No. 24-A/89/09/l O. In the meanwhile, respondent No.5 started working in the Panchayat in question and on the basis of certain complaints made with regard to election of Shri Bhushan @ Bhura Pathak for the purpose of getting elected he had submitted some false declaration and affidavit. The matter was taken up by the Collector and vide order dated 7.3.2009 (Annexure P-4), the election of Shri Bhushan @ Bhura Pathak to the post of Sarpanch of the Panchayat was quashed. Immediately after Shri Bhushan@ Bhura Pathak was removed from the post of Sarpanch, the Gram Panchayat again met under the Chairmanship of Shri Shyam Lal, the Up-Sarpanch and passed a resolution (Annexure P-5) on 17.3.2009, ordering removal of respondent No.5 from the post of Panchayat Karmi on the ground that he was related to Shri Bhushan @ Bhura Pathak. However, without issuing notice to respondent No.5 and without hearing him, his appointment made vide order dated 7.9.2007 was cancelled by this resolution. Accordingly, respondent No.5 challenged this resolution dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure P-S) before the SDO and the SDO having allowed his appeal and quashed his termination vide order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) and the Collector having upheld the order of the SDO vide Annexure P-l, dated 15. 11.20 I 0, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing both these orders.

4. During the course of hearing, the only ground canvassed by Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, was to the effect that against the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, appeal before the SDO was not maintainable and places reliance on an unreported judgement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 161 19/2007 (S), Jagdish Nagvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, decided on 2. 12.2008.

5. That apart, two other grounds raised in the writ petition are to the effect that appointment of respondent No.5 is illegal because he was related to the then Sarpanch Shri Bhushan @ Bhura Pathak and he was not a resident of villa