1. Short facts relevant for the purpose of present writ petition are that Gram Panchayat, Shivpuri issued an advertisement dated 10.8.2007 (Annexure P-2) inviting thereby applications for the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary). Relevant minimum qualifications were as follows:

(i) The applicant must have passed under 10 + 2 system, High School, Higher Secondary Examination.

(ii) In addition to the qualification described in the advertisement, the Gram Panchayat may add other suitable qualifications by passing resolution.

(iii) There must be a constructed latrine in the residential premises of the applicant which must be in use. Certificate of Sarpanch/Secretary will have to be attached to the application.

2. Applications were invited during the period from 10.8.2007 to 20.8.2007. Various candidates including the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 made applications pursuant to the said advertisement. Applicants including Kamlapati Pandey and Shripati Pandey, both sons of Shri Thakur Prasad Pandey were considered in the meeting of Gram Panchayat held on 16.9.2007. Name of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there was no constructed latrine in his residential premises and no such certificate was enclosed with the application. The Gram Panchayat passed the resolution appointing thereby the respondent No. 5 on the post of Panchayat Karmi vide Annexure P-3 dated 16.9.2007. Pursuant thereto the appointment order was issued on 17.9.2007 in favour of respondent No.5 vide Annexure P-l.

3. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been preferred for quashment of order Annexure P-l and to command the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) of Gram Panchayat Shivpur, District Rewa mainly with the allegation that the petitioner was having 77% marks in High School Examination and there was a latrine already constructed since the year 1990 in the house of' petitioner as revealed in certificate Annexure P-4.

4. Respondent No.5 submitted the return and opposed the writ petition on various grounds including maintainability. He stated that the petitioner was not qualified because there was no latrine in his house as revealed in Annexure R-2. Countering it, the petitioner submitted rejoinder stating therein that he is living jointly with his uncle in a house having latrine. Certificates with respect to the constructed latrine, issued by various Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch and other local residents are annexed to the rejoinder which has been in use since 1990.

5. Shri A.G. Dhande, learned senior advocate with Shri Arpan Shrivastava, Shri G.P. Singh, learned Government advocate and Shri Amit Singh made their respective submissions.

6. Shri Amit Singh, learned counsel contended that the order for appointment marked as Annexure P-l is an appealable order under Rule 3 of M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and writ petition directly before this Court without availing the alternative remedy is not maintainable.

7. Obviously, there is an alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 3 as contended by Shri Amit Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. However, in view of the decision of the apex Court rendered in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and others, 1998 (8) SCC 1, a writ petition may be directly entertained if any of the fundamental rights is infringed. It is to be examined in the present case that whether there is a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since it involves various other documents, it would be considered at the later stage of the judgment.

8. Shri Dhande, learned senior counsel contended that neither under the Panchayat Karmi Yojna nor under circular of the State Government dated 13th of August, 2007 (Annexure P-5) it was made qualification that the applicant must have latrine in his house. This being so, the petitioner could not have been excluded from consideration on the ground of absence of la