Gopal Singh Gurjar vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Hon. Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

In the present case, admittedly the selection process started before commencement of new rules, namely, Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 (For short "2011 Rules"). The petitioner was found to be No. 2 in merit below Kumari Sadhna Goswami. Later on, Ku. Sadhana Goswami submitted her affidavit and decided to forego the said appointment. Thus, a recommendation was made by Gram Panchayat for appointment of the petitioner. The Sarpanch issued an order on 03.08.2011 (Annexure P-6), whereby the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi. However, the resolution of Gram Panchayat was not entertained and rejected by the respondents by note-sheet dated 09.12.2011. It is rejected on the ground that 2011 Rules aforesaid came into being w.e.f. 29.03.2011 and, therefore, the Sarpanch had no authority, jurisdiction and competence to appoint the petitioner and in view of 2011 Rules, petitioner has no right to claim appointment.

(2) Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a singular contention that as per Rule 11 of 2011 Rules, the actions duly taken earlier in view of the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995/guidelines has not come to an end and are required to be saved and, therefore, petitioner cannot be deprived from the fruits of the selection and recommendation of the Gram Panchayat.

(3) Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned Government counsel, supported the note-sheet and submits that after commencement of the 2011 Rules, Gram Panchayat has no authority to appoint the petitioner and no legal right is created in favour of the petitioner.

(4) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(5) There is no dispute between the parties that after commencement of 2011 Rules, the service and recruitment conditions of the petitioner are governed by the new rules. The only question is whether Rule 11 is of any assistance to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case. It is apt to quote Rule 11:-

Repeal and Saving.-- The guidelines issued for the implementation of the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995 and orders and instructions issued in this regard are hereby repealed:

Provided that any action duly taken or orders issued in accordance with the aforesaid Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995/guidelines so issued shall be deemed to have been taken or issued under the corresponding provisions of these rules.

A bare perusal of rules aforesaid shows that the earlier guidelines for implementation of Panchayat Karmi Yojna is specifically repealed. However, it contains a proviso as well. The underlined portion shows that when action is duly taken and order is issued in accordance with Panchayat Karmi Yojna, it will be deemed to be under the corresponding provision of these rules. In the present case, no right is accrued in favour of the petitioner. The note-sheet (Annexure P-9) contains the name of petitioner at No.

This note-sheet is prepared on 01.04.2011. Thus, before preparation of even this merit list, new rules of 2011 came into being. Thus, till commencement of 2011 Rules, no action was taken, which shows that the petitioner accrued any right. The order-sheet (Annexure P-9) and the subsequent note-sheet dated 15.06.2011 are issued after the commencement of the rules. Even, the Sarpanch issued the order on 03.08.2011 i.e. much after the commencement of the rules. Thus, the proviso to Rule 11 has no role to play. The proviso is applicable to actions which are taken prior to the commencement of the rules.

(6) In the present case, it is clear that the merit list and the recommendation in favour of the petitioner is prepared subsequently. The appointment order issued by the Sarpanch (Annexure P-6) is also subsequent to commencement of the Rules 2011. Thus, neither action nor the order can be treated to be saved in Rule 11 of the said rules. In other words, on commencement of 2011 Rules, earlier scheme stood repealed. Any action on the basis of scheme after its repeal, is not saved. Actions in favour of petitioner i.e. preparation of merit list, resolution and appointment order, etc. are actions after repeal of enabling erstwhile scheme and, therefore, cannot be treated as saved under Rule 11.

(7) On the basis of aforesaid analysis, the singular contention is answered against the petitioner. Petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No costs.