1. After notice, matter with consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard.

2. Issue as to whether an incumbent, though most meritorious, can be denied appointment for the post of Panchayat Karmi on the ground of his/her being not the resident of the village where the appointment is made has been answered in following terms by Division Bench of this Court in Raghvendra Singh v. State of M.P. and others [2015(3) MPLJ 356] :

“7. … We find that in the matter of appointment of Panchayat Karmi, the scheme formulated is by virtue of the powers available with the State Government under the M.P.Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Panchayat Secretary is a post in District cadre and their services are transferable from on Panchayat to another within the same District. Once the appointment is made to a post where an employee being of whichever locality or village is liable to be transferred to another Panchayat in a village within the District. The question of appointment of Panchayat Karmi or Panchayat Secretary being a local resident of the Panchayat will not apply. Once a cadre is formulated districtwise and an employee borne in the said cadre is liable to be transferred from one village to another, it can never be the intention of the executive authorities to have a Panchayat Karmi who is resident of a local authority. It is common ground and judicial notice can be taken of a fact that Panchayat Secretary and Panchayat Karmi are being regularly transferred from one Panchayat to another in the same District as a policy of the State Government and if such a transfer policy is implemented, it is clear intention of the rule maker that requirement of a person being a local resident is not at all mandatory in nature. That apart, the provision of the scheme as reproduced hereinabove only indicates that it is directory in nature and not mandatory. If a more meritorious candidate is available, his candidature cannot be rejected or he cannot be denied appointment only on the ground that he is not resident of local village where the Panchayat is situated. Such a reason for denying his appointment will be in violation of the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which could not be the intention of rule makers. All these aspects have been considered by the learned writ Court while rejecting the contention of the appellant and we find no reason to take a different view.”

3. Case at hand is not different to that of the matter before Division Bench.

4. Out of 19 candidates who applied for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi Gram Panchayat Karrail, Janpad Panchayat Kusumi, District Sidhi, Petitioner secured 62.9%, respondent No.4 : 48.8%, respondent No.5 : 56.6%. Being the most meritorious, petitioner was placed at serial No.1 in the select list vide resolution dated 11.4.2008. The resolution however was not approved by the prescribed authority, vide his order dated 16.6.2008, in an Appeal preferred by respondent No.5. The Prescribed Authority observed:

^^izdj.k esa layXu xzke iapk;r dh dk;Zokgh iath ,oa vkosnu&i=ksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA xzke iapk;r dh dk;Zokgh fnukad 11-4-2008 ds vuqlkj loZlEefr ls Jherh yhykorh ;kno dks iapk;rdehZ fu;qfDr djus dk izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA vkosnu&i=ksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ftlesa yhykorh ;kno }kjk xzke epsMh dk fuokl izek.k&i= fd;k x;k gSA U;k;ky; }kjk ek¡xs tkus ij mlds }kjk ewy izek.k&i= is'k ugha fd;k x;kA fnukad 31-5-2008 dks vuqifLFkr jgus ij mrjoknhx.k ds fo:} ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dh xbZA vihykFkhZ }kjk mrjoknh dz-3 ds fuokl izek.k&i= dh rglhynkj dqleh }kjk tkjh dh xbZ lR;&izfrfyfi ds vuqlkj og xzke d.kksfr;k dh fuoklh gSA bl izdkj mrjoknh dz-3 }kjk izLrqr fuokl izek.k&i= lafnX/k izrhr gksrk gSA

vU; vihykFkhZ jkedj.k flag }kjk izLrqr vihy ds ifjizs{; esa foKfIr dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA xzke iapk;r }kjk tkjh foKkiu esa vgZrkvksa ds in dz-3 esa vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr@fiNM+k oxZ ,oa efgyk mEehnokj dks izkFkfedrk fn, tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS ijarq izkFkfedrk fdl vk/kkj ij nh tk,xh