Shantanu Kemkar, J. -- 1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This intra Court appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been directed against the order dated 10.8.2011 passed by Single Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 10387 of 2010 (S).

3. Briefly stated, the 3rd respondent-Gram Panchayat, Barwani invited applications for filling the post of Panchayat Karmi. The appellant and the 4th respondent (writ petitioner) submitted their applications amongst other candidates for the said post. After receipt of the applications a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat on 8.8.2007, resolving to appoint the appellant herein, as a Panchayat Karmi on the basis of majority of votes. Pursuant to the said resolution and order of appointment was issued by the Gram Panchayat on 9.8.2007 appointing the appellant as Panchayat Karmi.

4. The 4th respondent challenged the appointment of the appellant by filing an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (for short, the SDO) Barwani. The SDO Barwani, vide order dated 3.7.2008, dismissed the appeal of the 4th respondent and maintained the order of the Gram Panchayat by which the appellant was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi on the basis of majority of votes. The revision filed by the 4th respondent against the order of the SDO also suffered dismissal vide order dated 14.6.2010, passed by the Additional Commissioner in Revision No. 285/2007-08.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the SDO and Revision by the Additional Commissioner, the 4th respondent filed the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 10387/2010 (S). The said writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 10.8.2011, placing reliance on the order passed in the case of Prajapal Singh v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2009 (I) MPWN 24 = 2009 (I) MPLJ 640, and also on the order dated 14.10.2010 passed in the case of Yatindra Gupta v. State of M.P. and others, in W.P. No. 12498 of 2010 (S). The learned Single Judge set aside the resolution, the order of appointment of the appellant, the order of the SDO and the Additional Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the Gram Panchayat to pass a fresh resolution on the basis of merit. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this intra Court appeal.

6. Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was duly appointed by the Gram Panchayat on the basis of the majority of votes being casted in favour of the appellant. The said appointment was in accordance with the existing provision and circular and there was no illegality in it. He pointed out that the circular dated 27.1.2006 was in force when the appellant was appointed, thereafter, the State Government issued another circular on 13.8.2007 in which, for the first time, it was made mandatory for the Gram Panchayat or to the Collector as the case may be to ensure compliance of merit in making appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi. He argued that in the said circular dated 13.8.2007, it was made clear that the observance of merit for making appointment was not necessary in the Gram Panchayat in which appointments were already made as per circular dated 27.1.2006. Thus, according to him, the appointment of the appellant on the post of Panchayat Karmi on the basis of majority of votes could not have been set aside by the learned Single Judge by applying the circular which came into force w.e.f.13.8.2007 i.e., after the issuance of the appellant's appointment order. He further argued that the Writ Court has failed to consider that the 4th respondent's appeal before the SDO was barred by limitation and therefore, was liable to be dismissed . on that ground alone.

7. Shri Pankaj Soni, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent on the other hand supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He contended that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Prajapal