IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

th

ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 2300 of 2025 RAMNATH AHIRWAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Jitendra Shrivastava - Advocate for Appellant.

Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for Respondents/State.

ORDER Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vinay Saraf

1. By the instant intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.2364 of 2009, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated

16.02.1996 and resolution dated 15.02.1996, was dismissed.

2. The short facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Panchayat Karmi by order dated 30.10.1995, which was issued in furtherance of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, wherein the Gram Panchayat decided to appoint the appellant for a period of 89 days. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat passed another resolution on 15.02.1996 to appoint the respondent No.6 in place of appellant. In furtherance of resolution dated 15.02.1996, appointment order was issued in favour of respondent No.6 on 16.02.1996. Appellant challenged the resolution and appointment order of respondent No.6 in an appeal before SDO, which was dismissed by observing that the appointment of the appellant was temporary in nature and was for a period of 89 days only and, therefore, he has no right to continue and challenge the appointment of respondent No.6. Appellant assailed the order passed by SDO before Collector and, thereafter, before Commissioner unsuccessfully. Thereafter, the subject writ petition was filed, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.07.2025.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the appellant was appointed by order dated 30.10.1995, wherein it was not mentioned that he had been appointed for a period of 89 days only. No letter or show-cause notice was issued to the appellant before appointing respondent No.6 in place of appellant. Appellant permitted to work till 15.02.1996. The Gram Panchayat had no authority to appoint the respondent No.6 by passing a resolution in place of appellant. He submits that the action of Gram Panchayat was contrary to the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the resolution dated 15.02.1996, by which respondent No.6 was proposed to be appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi and his appointment order dated 16.02.1996 are liable to be quashed and appellant be directed to reinstate on the said post.

4. Learned Government Advocate supported the order passed by learned Writ Court and submits that the appellant is not working since 15.02.1996 and after a period of 32 years, no such relief can be granted to the appellant.

5. We perused the record and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. In the appointment order dated 30.10.1995, by which the appellant was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi, it was mentioned that the said order was issued in compliance of resolution passed by Gram Panchayat on 30.10.1995 and the appointment was temporary in nature. The appellant availed the benefit of that appointment and no objection was raised by the appellant that Gram Panchayat had no authority to pass the resolution of appointment for 89 days only and the appellant ought to have been appointed on regular basis. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat passed fresh resolution and recommended to appoint respondent No.6 as Panchayat Karmi by resolution dated 15.02.1996. Respondent No.6 was appointed on 16.02.1996 since then the appellant is not working. The learned Writ Court has considered the case of the appellant and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Writ Court has held that as the appellant did not assail his appointment for a period of 89 days only therefore, he is bound by the principles of waiver as well as