1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The relevant facts of the case briefly are that petitioner applied for the appointment to the post of Gram Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Balodiya District Mandsaur. The Gram Panchayat adopted the resolution dated 8.6.2002 for the appointment of the petitioner as Gram Panchayat Karmi. Aggrieved, the 4th respondent Ramchandra filed an appeal under section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (For short "Adhiniyam") before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer did not find any illegality in the resolution by which the petitioner was selected and appointed as Panchayat Karmi. He accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the 4th respondents vide order dated 31.1.2003 (Annexure P-12).

3. Aggrieved, the 4th respondent filed Revision No. 52/02-03 before the Additional Collector Mandsaur. The Additional Collector Mandsaur vide order dated 28.7.2003 (Annexure P-13) allowed the revision holding that on perusal of the record of Gram Panchayat it appears that the petitioner has been wrongly selected. It has been further observed that in spite of there being other meritorious candidates, the petitioner has been selected not on merits but by way of majority of votes in the meeting which is contrary to the criteria of selection fixed by the Panchayat Karmi Scheme notified by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Collector by way of revision before the Additional Commissioner Ujjain. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 8.4.2002 (Annexure P-14) dismissed the petitioner's revision. Hence, this petition.

4. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being more meritorious than 4th respondent Ramchandra, he was rightly selected and another candidate Laxman who was having more marks than the petitioner was subsequently elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, in the circumstances, the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner should not have interfered into the petitioner's selection and his appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. He argued in the appeal filed by the 4th respondent before the Sub Divisional Officer he challenged the resolution and the resolution being not appeal able in view of the judgment of this Court in case of Ram Lakhan Rawat v. State of M.P and others [2000 (2) MPLJ 176] the appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer was incompetent.

5. Shri Arvind Gokhale, learned GA argued that selection of the petitioner by way of resolution was followed by issuance of order of appointment by the Gram Panchayat. The challenge before Sub Divisional Officer by way of an appeal was whether the selection made by the Gram Panchayat by adopting the resolution was not correct either on facts or in law. In the circumstances, according to him, the appeal was competent· before the Sub-Divisional Officer. He further pointed out that this point was not raised by the petitioner before any of the Courts below and the ground in this regard has been raised in this petition also. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to raise this ground for the first time at this stage of final arguments. According to him, petitioner's selection was not on the basis of the consideration of comparative merits and de-merits of the candidates but was made by the Gram Panchayat on the basis of the majority of votes which is contrary to the provisions of the Scheme and criteria for the selection. In the circumstances, the Additional Collector as also Additional Commissioner have committed no illegality in setting aside the petitioner's selection as Panchayat Karmi and directing the Gram Panchayat to carry out fresh process for the appointment of Panchayat Karmi. He further argued that after passing of the orders of the Additional Commissioner, petitioner's power of Secretary has been revoked on 10.2.2006. In support he