The authority to appoint includes the authority to rescind, and the failure to establish prejudice resulting from not following natural justice does not invalidate the cancellation of an appointment.

ORDER :

AMIT SETH, J.

The instant writ petition takes exception to the resolution dated 14.04.2023 (Annexure-P/11) passed by the Gram Panchayat Mohanpura, Janpad Panchayat Seondha, District Datia (M.P.). The petition also challenges the order dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure-P/15) passed by the respondent No.3, whereby, on the representation/resolution of the Gram Panchayat, the earlier order dated 16.02.2023 passed by respondent No.3, appointing the petitioner as Pujari of the temple Shri Bhagwan Shankar Va Vankhandeshwar Ji, Gram Mohanpura and Teda Mandir, Tehsil Seondha, has been recalled and cancelled.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the application (Annexure-P/1) dated 17.04.2023 submitted by the petitioner, and on receiving the report from the Patwari (Annexure-P/2), and on being satisfied that the petitioner was eligible to be appointed as Pujari of the temple in question, the respondent No.3 passed an order dated 16.02.2023, whereby the petitioner was appointed as a Pujari of the temple in question. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Gram Panchayat has absolutely no authority to make any recommendation in respect of the appointment of a Pujari, yet the impugned resolution dated 14.04.2023 was passed, wherein it was resolved that the petitioner had succeeded in getting himself appointed as a Pujari of the temple in question by misrepresenting facts and by incorrectly claiming to be a resident of village, whereas he is actually a resident of Alampur, District Bhind. It is on this recommendation/resolution, without following the principles of natural justice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.3 has passed the order dated 10.04.2023, thereby cancelling/recalling the appointment order of the petitioner dated 16.02.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 passed by respondent No.3 is patently without jurisdiction, inasmuch as he has no authority to act upon the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, which, according to the petitioner, is itself without any authority. That apart, learned counsel further submits that the procedure as contemplated under the circular dated 04.02.2019 has not been followed prior to passing of the impugned order. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for quashment of the orders impugned along with other reliefs as stated in paragraph 7 of the petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as other respondents oppose the reliefs claimed by the petitioner and submit that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition without availing the alternative remedy of appeal as provided under the circular itself. Furthermore, it is contended that the temple in question is not managed by the State Government but is managed by the funds collected by the villagers of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, in the first instance, the appointment of the petitioner under the circular (Annexure-R/2) was itself not proper, as the said circular is applicable only to such temples which are managed by the State. It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), while passing the impugned order dated 10.04.2023, recorded a specific reason/finding that the petitioner had not only misrepresented facts, but the temple in question is not managed by the State Government, which is one of the basic reason for passing of the order impugned. However, nothing has been filed/pleaded by the petitioner to controvert the said finding. Once the authority records a reason that the temple is not managed by the State Government, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to challenge the said reasoning, which he has not done and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief.

5. No o