ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging impugned order dated 21.9.2021 contained in Annexure-P/1 passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar and order dated 1.10.2021 (Annexure-P/6) passed by Tehsildar in pursuance of order dated 21.9.2021 given appointment to Lokendra Singh/respondent No.5 as 'Gram Kotwar' in Gram Jhirmila, Kariyapani, Tahsil-Shahnagr, District-Panna (MP).

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that order dated 21.9.2021 (Annexure-P/1) is bad in law as Commissioner allowed appeal on basis of higher educational qualification of respondent No.5 i.e. passing of Class-XII examination. He further prayed for direction to appoint petitioner on post of 'Kotwar'.

3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for State as well as counsel for respondent No.5 supported the order passed by Commissioner. It is submitted that respondent No.5 was more qualified then petitioner and Commissioner has rightly passed order dated 21.9.2021.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. Brief facts of the case for decision in writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as 'Kotwar' vide order dated 6.3.2019 passed by Tahsildar Pawai, District-Panna. Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before Sub-divisional Officer against order of Tahsildar. SDO dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No.5 by its order dated 11.10.2019. Thereafter, appeal was preferred before Commissioner and Commissioner vide order dated 21.9.2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of Tahsildar as well as SDO and gave direction for appointment of respondent No.5-Lokendra Singh as 'Kotwar'.

6. Kotwars are appointed as per section 230 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and Rules i.e. Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Miscellaneous Rules, 2020 are enacted which were notified on 6.11.2020. As per Rules 57 and 59, Gram Sabha has to make recommendation for appointment of 'Kotwar' and send it to Tahsildar. Tahsildar shall consider the recommendation and pass order of appointment of Kotwar. Tahsildar is also vested with power to reject the recommendation if Kotwar is having any of the disqualifications mentioned in Rule 57.

7. Rules 57 and 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Miscellaneous) Rule, 2020 are quoted as under:-

**57- dksVokj ds in ij fu;qfDr ds fy, fujgZrk,a%& dksbZ O;fDr dksVokj ds in gsrq ik= ugha gksxk tks%&
¼,d½ ml xzke vFkok xzkeksa esa LFkk;h :i ls fuokl ugha dj jgk gks ftlds fy, og fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA
¼nks½ 18 o"kZ ls de vk;q dk gSA
¼rhu½ uSfrd iru dks vfHkxzLr djus okys fdlh vijk/k dk vFkok efgykvksa ds fo:} fdlh vijk/k dk vFkok jkT; ds fo:} fo/oaldkjh xfrfof/k;ksa dks vfHkxzLr djus okys fdlh vijk/k dk nks"kfl} gqvk gks vkSj ,slh nks"kflf} dks vihy ;k iqujh{ki.k esa iyVk ugha x;k gksA
¼pkj½ nq"pfj= gksA
¼ikap½ dksVokj ds drZO;ksa dk ÁHkkohA
¼Ng½ vkBoha d{kk dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ u gksA
58- dksVokj dk fu;qfDr Ákf/kdkjh & dksVokj dh fu;qfDr bu fu;eksa d¢ bl Hkkx d¢ mica/kksa ds vuqlkj rglhynkj }kjk dh tk,xhA**

8. On going through the records, it is found that Gram Rojgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Jhirmila, Kariyapani has issued a letter dated 1.10.2019 (Annexure-R/5-2) and stated therein that there is no records to show that any recommendation was sent by Gram Panchayat for appointment of petitioner. No proceedings were held of Gram Sabha and proposal/recommendation of Gram Sabha on basis of which Tehsildar and SDO has passed order is suspicious.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, it appears that there is no recommendation of Gram Sabha for appointment of petitioner on post of 'Kotwar'. As per Rules, recommendation has to be made by Gram Sabha and Tahsildar has to pass order on basis of said recommendation unless recommended candidates suffer from any disqualification under Rule 57.

10. In view of aforesaid, law/proceedings which has been initiated by Tahsildar, SDO and Commissioner, is contrary to the procedure prescribed in law, therefore, impugned orders