ORDER

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner herein was one of the candidate in the process of selection against the post of Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Tenduhata, Tahsil and Janpad Panchayat, Maihar District Satna. The petitioner herein was most meritorious having scored 74.8 marks, yet the Gam Panchayat passed a resolution in favour of one Yogendra Singh son of Yadavendra Singh.

2. Thereafter, an order dated 10-10-2007 was issued by Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Justice Department, District Satna contained in Annexure-P/3 by which directions were issued to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Maihar, District Satna to initiate process of appointment of Panchayat Karmi in the Gram Panchayat, Tenduhata as well as three other Gram Panchayats.

3. Assailing the order dated 10-10-2007 (Annexure-P/3) the selected candidate Yogendra Singh filed a petition before this Court being W.P.

No.15213/2007, in which the interim order order was granted in favour of the petitioner therein. During the pendency of the said writ petition original petitioner - Yogendra Singh expired and accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16-8-2017, which has been brought on record as Annexure-P/4.

4 . Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as the selected candidate Yogendra Singh has expired, therefore, name of the petitioner ought to have been considered, inasmuch as the petitioner herein, was most meritorious in the list which is contained in the resolution (Annexure-P/1).

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.4 is now authority competent to take a decision as regards appointment of Panchayat Karmi in terms of the statutory rules. Therefore, submits that appropriate direction be issued to respondent No.4 to consider grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.

6. The aforesaid innocuous prayer of the petitioner is not opposed by learned counsel for State.

7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits on the case, it is directed that if the petitioner herein prefers a representation before the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayt, Satna (respondent No.4) within a period of 15 days from today, respondent No.4 shall consider and decide the same by passing a well reasoned and speaking order within a further period of 90 days. If the petitioner is found entitled for the benefit of appointment as Panchayat Karmi, the same shall be extended to the petitioner within a further period of 45 days.

8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE ac