Appointments must adhere to merit as per statutory provisions; majority votes cannot override this requirement.

ORDER :

These two petitions have been filed by two rival contenders to the post of Panchayat Karmi being aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Minister of State for Rural Development, Government of Madhya Pradesh, thereby cancelling the earlier process for appointment and directing fresh proceedings be carried out for filling up the post. Apart from challenging the aforesaid order, both rival candidates seek their own appointment to the post.

2. During pendency of the petition, respondent No.8 in WP 27643/2018 who is petitioner in WP 26046/2018 continued to work and expired in the intervening period i.e. on 13.2.2024. After his death, his Legal representatives have been substituted. Further development took place that his widow has been granted compassionate appointment on 13.6.2024 and the said order has also been put to challenge in WP 27643/2018 by way of amendment as Annexure P-22. Another candidate, namely Usha Bai, who was at Sr. No. 4 in the panel, has filed intervention application IA No. 13346/2024 in WP No. 26046/2018 asserting her own rights to appointment.

3. Due to similitude of facts and controversy involved, both these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, reference to facts and documents is taken from WP No. 27643/2018.

4. It is the sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the resolution Annexure P-1 dated 14.9.2007 whereby the respondent No.8 was appointed is not passed on basis of merits of the rival candidates and that the said resolution having been passed on basis of majority of votes in favour of respondent No.8 who was otherwise at merit position No.9 in the panel is illegal in terms of the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Vs. Chief Executive Officer, reported in 2012 (1) MPHT 74.

5. Per contra, it has been the case of respondent No.8 that even in the absence of majority of votes, all other candidates were disqualified inasmuch there is one or the other disqualification of each of the candidates. The number of some were wrongfully recorded by the Panchayat in the resolution and many others were close relatives of the office bearers of the Panchayat, and were therefore, disqualified. Thus, it is the case of respondent No.8 that he was the highest person in merit who was otherwise qualified to hold the post.

6. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the Gram Panchayat initiated a process for appointment of Panchayat Karmi in the Panchayat in the year 2007. As per the Panchayat Karmi Scheme of the State Government dated 12.9.1995, it was contemplated to appoint Panchayat Karmi in the Panchayat for the purpose of conferral of Secretarial charge in terms of Section 69 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 (for short, Adhiniyam 1993). Now undisputedly, the a regular cadre for Panchayat Secretary has been constituted in the year 2011 as per the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary. Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 and the previously appointed Panchayat Karmis have been absorbed in the regular cadre of Panchayat Secretary.

7. The dispute started with this resolution dated 14.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) wherein the Panchayat resolved to appoint the respondent No.8 as Panchayat Secretary despite being at Sr. No. 9 in the order of merit. The appointment letter Annexure P-2 was issued on the same date and he was conferred the Secretarial charge by the Collector vide order annexure P-3 dated 29.12.2007.

8. Another candidate namely Kalyan Singh, who was at Sr. No. 3 in the merit panel, filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (“SDO” for short) against such appointment of respondent No.8 and that appeal came to be decided vide order dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure P-4), holding the appointment of respondent No.8 to be illegal as it was de-hors the merit. The SDO directed to re-operate the panel as per merit. The said or