O R D E R

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing endorsements dated 23rd November, 2017 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.2-Zilla Panchayat and 03rd October, 2018 (Annexure-B) issued by the respondent No.3-

Gram Panchyat.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat has invited applications from the eligible candidates for appointment of various posts pursuant to the Notification dated 05th November, 2015 (Annexure-F).

The petitioner has appeared for examination and interview by submitting relevant documents in terms of letter dated 29th July, 2017 (Annexure-D). The respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat has conducted written examination as well as interview for appointment to the post of Peon. As the petitioner has secured highest marks in the written test as well as in the interview, the petitioner was declared as successful candidate in the recruitment. However, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the respondent No.2-Zilla Panchayat. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri. Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. N. Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri. Umesh A., learned counsel on behalf of Sri. A.K. Vasanth, appearing for the respondent No.2; and Sri. Vikas M., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

4. Sri. Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of Court to the impugned endorsement dated 23rd November, 2017 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.2-Zilla Panchayat and submitted that the respondent No.3-Gram Panchyat has invited applications for the post of Peon and the petitioner has been selected after complying with the procedure. However, at the instance of one Smt. Yamuna who has lodged complaint, the respondent No.2-Zilla Panchayat has issued impugned endorsement dated 23rd November, 2017 (Annexure-A), which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. He also submitted that, on previous year, insofar as Notification dated 04th August, 2016 (Annexure-M), the similar procedure contemplated under Section 113 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchyat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) was followed and therefore, the procedure has been properly followed by the respondent No.3-Gram Panchyat while appointing the petitioner. Hence, the respondent No.2-Zilla Panchayat ought to have approved the appointment of the petitioner. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

5. Sri. Umesh A., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 invited the attention of Court to the Government Order dated 10th September, 2014 (Annexure-Q)

and submitted that the appointment has to be made in accordance with the said Government order. He also submitted that, non-approval of the candidature of the petitioner was due to the procedural lapse on the part of the respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition by justifying the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2-Zilla Panchyat.

6. Sri. N. Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 argued on the similar lines.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into account the averments made in the writ petition, the same would indicate that the procedure for appointment of the employees to the Gram Panchyat is as per Section 113 of the Act. Perusal of Section 113 of the Act makes it clear that the Gram Panchayat is the competent authority to appoint the employees to the panchayat and thereafter, it has to be approved by the Zilla Panchayat. In this aspect, the respondent No.3-Gram Panchyat has invited the applications from the eligible candidates for the appointment of various posts including the post of Peon as per Notification dated 05th November, 2015 (Annexure-F). In pursuant to the same, the respondent No.3-Gram Panchyat