Ajay Singh vs Pushpendra Singh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34007
1 WP-2709-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 2709 of 2014
CNR No.: MPHC030089742014
AJAY SINGH
Versus
PUSHPENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateria - Govt. Advocate for respondents No.5 & 6/State.
None for respondents No.1 to 4, though served.
Reserved on : 29/09/2026
Delivered on : 03/11/2026
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of
the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the Collector, Morena, whereby the
revisional authority has interfered with the order dated 29.05.2012 passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ambah, District Morena, in relation
to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Secretary,
Gram Panchayat Sirsa, Janpad Panchayat Ambah, District Morena.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the
Gram Panchayat Sirsa initiated the process for appointment to the post of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
12:47:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34007
2 WP-2709-2014
Panchayat Secretary in accordance with the prevailing policy and guidelines

governing such appointments. Pursuant thereto, applications were invited
from eligible candidates and the process of selection was undertaken by the
Gram Panchayat. The petitioner participated in the selection process and was
ultimately selected and appointed on the post of Panchayat Secretary by
virtue of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Consequent upon his
appointment, the petitioner joined the post and started discharging his duties.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the appointment was made after
due consideration of the comparative merits and eligibility of the candidates
and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the competent
authorities. However, subsequently certain objections came to be raised
regarding the legality of the appointment process. On the basis of such
objections, proceedings were initiated before the competent authorities and
the matter remained under consideration at different administrative levels.
The record further reveals that a notice was issued by the Collector calling
upon the concerned authorities to furnish their response regarding the
appointment process. The matter was thereafter examined by the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ambah, who passed an order on 29.05.2012.
The said order subsequently became the subject matter of revisional
proceedings before the Collector, Morena.
4. Upon consideration of the material available on record and the
objections raised with regard to the selection process, the Collector passed
the impugned order dated 21.04.2014, whereby findings adverse to the
petitioner were recorded and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
12:47:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34007
3 WP-2709-2014
was interfered with. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and contending that the

same is contrary to law, facts and the material available on record, the
petitioner has approached this Court by invoking its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order passed by the Collector is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable
in law. It is contended that the petitioner's appointment was made after
following the due procedure prescribed under the applicable policy and
guidelines governing appointment to the post of Panchayat Secretary and,
therefore, there was no justification for interference with the same. It is
submitted that the petitioner possessed all the requisite qualifications
prescribed for the post and was duly considered by the Selection Committee
and the Gram Panchayat. The appointment was made pursuant to a duly
convened meeting and a valid resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and,
therefore, the same could not have been annulled merely on the basis of
technical objections.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the authorities failed to
appreciate that the petitioner had already joined and worked on the post
pursuant to a lawful appointment and had acquired a valuable right which
could not have been taken away without cogent reasons. According to the
petitioner, the Collector exceeded the scope of revisional jurisdiction and
reassessed factual issues which had already been examined by the authorities
below. It is further argued that the impugned order has been passed without
proper appreciation of the relevant documents, resolutions and records
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
12:47:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34007
4 WP-2709-2014
pertaining to the selection process. The findings recorded by the Collector

are stated to be contrary to the material available on record and based upon
assumptions and presumptions. According to the petitioner, no substantial
illegality or procedural irregularity was established so as to justify
cancellation of his appointment.
7. Learned counsel also submits that the action of the respondents has
resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner, who has been deprived of the
benefits flowing from a valid appointment. It is, therefore, prayed that the
impugned order dated 21.04.2014 be quashed and appropriate consequential
reliefs be granted in favour of the petitioner. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. Rambabu and Others,
2012(3)MPLJ 450, Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Ram Lakhan vs. State of MP and Others, 2000 (1) JLJ 280, and also
judgement passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prahlad
Singh Patel vs. State of MP and Others, 1999(2) JLJ 374.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
State opposes the writ petition and support the impugned order passed by the
Collector. It is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was not made
in accordance with the prescribed procedure governing recruitment to the
post of Panchayat Secretary. It is contended that various irregularities and
procedural lapses were noticed during scrutiny of the recruitment process,
which rendered the appointment legally unsustainable. It is further submitted
that he competent authorities, upon examination of the entire record, found
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
12:47:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34007
5 WP-2709-2014
that the procedure adopted by the Gram Panchayat was not in conformity

with the applicable instructions and guidelines. It is contended that the
appointment process suffered from material defects and violations of the
prescribed norms, which justified interference by the revisional authority.
9. It is further submitted that public employment must be governed
strictly by the applicable rules and executive instructions and no person can
claim a vested right on the basis of an appointment which is contrary to the
prescribed procedure. According to the respondents, the petitioner cannot
derive any benefit from an appointment which was found to be irregular and
contrary to law. Learned counsel further submits that the Collector has
passed a detailed and reasoned order after considering all relevant documents
and after affording due opportunity to the concerned parties. The findings
recorded in the impugned order are based upon appreciation of the material
available on record and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or
perversity. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is legal, proper
and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since no case of
arbitrariness, mala fides, violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error is
made out, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents
available on record.
11. The principal issue for consideration is whether the order passed
by the Collector, Morena, can be sustained in the facts and circumstances of
the case, particularly when respondents No. 1 to 4 had not participated in the
selection process and the petitioner has questioned their right to challenge his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
12:47:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34007
6 WP-2709-2014
appointment.

12. In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court in Jitendra Singh v.
Rambabu and Others, reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 450, considered the
question of locus standi in proceedings relating to appointments under the
Panchayat law. The relevant part is quoted below:

5. Admittedly the petitioners before Writ Court were not personally
aggrieved by the appointment of Jitendra Singh (appellant herein) as
Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat Kundol, District Guna. To consider
as to whether the petitioners before the Writ Court had any right to file
appeal before the Appellate Authority (SDO) and other higher authorities,
it would be appropriate to scrutinize provisions of M.P. Panchayat (Appeal
and Revision) Rules, 1995 (‘Rule of 1995’ in brevity), Rule 3 of which
pertaining to appeal and Appellate Authorities is reproduced below:—

“3. Appeal and Appellate Authorities.— Save where it has
been otherwise provided in the Act or Rules or Bye-laws made
thereunder, an appeal shall lie,—
(a) in the case of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
under any provision of the Act or Rules or Bye-laws made
thereunder to the Collector.
(b) in the case of an order passed by the Collector under any
provision of the Act or Rules or Bye-laws made thereunder to
the Commissioner.
(c) in the case of an order passed by the Commissioner or
Director of Panchayats to the State Government.
(d) in the case of an order passed by the Panchayat specified in
column (1) of the Table below to the authority specified in the
corresponding entry in column (2) thereto.”

A plain reading of the Rule 3 of Rules of 1995 discloses that it merely
provides for an appeal to the higher authorities against certain orders
passed by Subordinate Authorities but is silent in respect of the identity of
the person who may file an appeal.

6. The Rules of 1995 derive strength from section 91 of the M.P.
Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (‘Adhiniyam of
1993’ in brevity), which also does not mention about the person entitled to
file appeal or revision as is evident from said section, which is reproduced
below:—
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
12:47:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34007
7 WP-2709-2014

“91. Appeal and Revision. — An appeal or revision against the
orders or proceedings of a Panchayat and other authorities
under this Act, shall lie to such authority and in such manner
as may be prescribed.”
7. Some indication as to the identity of a person entitled to file an appeal
is provided in Rule 5 of Rule 1995 providing for revision, which is
reproduced below:—


“5. Revision. — (1) (a) The State Government, the
Commissioner, the Director of Panchayat, the Collector may
on its/his own mention or on the application by any party, at
any time for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to the
legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the
regularity of the proceeding of, the authority subordinate to
it/him call for and examine the record of any case pending
before, or disposed of by, such authority and may pass such
order in reference thereto as it/he may think fit:
Provided that it/he shall not vary or reverse any order unless
notice has been served on the parties interested and
opportunity given to them for being heard:
Provided further that no application for revision shall be
entertained against an order appealable under the Act,
(b) An application for revision by any party shall only be
entertained if it is on the point of law and not on facts;
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1):—
(i) Where proceedings in respect of any case have been
commenced by the State Government under sub-rule (1), no
action shall be taken by other Officer mentioned in the said
sub-rule in respect thereof, and
(ii) Where proceedings in respect of any such case have been
commenced by the Officer mentioned in sub-rule (1), the State
Government may either refrain from taking any action under
this rule in respect of such case until the final disposal of such
proceeding by such officer or may withdraw such proceeding
and pass such order as it may deem fit.”

Perusal of the provision of Rule 5 relating to revision discloses that an
application can be preferred by any party, which necessarily meant that a
person interested or a person aggrieved and not a person who is a mere
stranger to the lis. The power of revision is exercised either suo motu by
the authorities mention in Rule 5 to verify the legality and propriety of the
order or proceedings of Subordinate Authorities. The revisional power is
exercised by the authorities when invoked by an application preferred by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
12:47:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34007
8 WP-2709-2014
any party. The term “party” used in Rule 5 implies a party adversely
affected by the order or proceedings which are proposed to be made
subject-matter of revisions. The term “party” will also include the person
who is aggrieved by the appellate order passed under Rule 3. Thus, the
rule framing authority has not used the term “party” in Rule 3 as used in
Rule 5. The absence of term “party” in Rule 3 may or may be a conscious
act on the part of the rule making authority and therefore, cannot compel
this Court to take a view that the term “party” has been consciously not
used in Rule 3 thereby leaving scope even for an uninterested and stranger
to prefer an appeal under Rule 3. If it is held otherwise then flood-gates
will be opened for even strangers to any order or proceedings passed under
the Adhiniyam, 1993 to file an appeal thereby creating a chaotic situation
for the Appellate Authorities to deal with exceptionally by large number of
appeals filed by strangers and busy bodies who have no personal interest
in the dispute.

13. The judgment recognises that a person invoking a statutory remedy
must establish that he is legally entitled to challenge the decision in question.
A person who has no legal interest in the matter cannot ordinarily maintain
proceedings merely because he wishes to question the appointment of
another person.
14. The principle of locus standi requires that a person approaching an
authority must show a sufficient legal interest in the dispute. The mere desire
to challenge an appointment does not, by itself, confer a right to initiate
proceedings. The authority concerned must examine whether the person
raising the objection has suffered any legal injury or has any other legally
recognised basis to challenge the appointment.
15. In the present case, respondents No. 1 to 4 did not participate in
the selection process for appointment to the post of Panchayat Secretary.
They have not demonstrated, on the basis of the material placed before this
Court, that any legal right of theirs was adversely affected by the petitioner's
appointment. They cannot claim the status of aggrieved persons merely
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
12:47:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34007
9 WP-2709-2014
because they seek to question the selection of the petitioner.

16. Therefore, in the absence of any established legal interest or other
legally recognised ground for challenging the appointment, respondents No.
1 to 4 cannot be permitted to maintain proceedings merely to question the
petitioner's selection. The principle laid down in Jitendra Singh v. Rambabu
and Others, 2012 (3) MPLJ 450, supports the requirement that the person
challenging an appointment must establish the legal basis for doing so.
17. This Court is conscious of the fact that an appointment to public
employment must conform to the applicable rules and prescribed procedure.
A person cannot claim an absolute or indefeasible right to continue in service
if the appointment is found to be contrary to mandatory recruitment
provisions. However, a challenge to an appointment must also be examined
in accordance with the applicable law, and the authority concerned must
consider the maintainability of the proceedings and the grounds on which
interference is sought.
18. It is also necessary to distinguish between proceedings initiated by
a private person and a revision initiated by the competent authority on its
own motion. The absence of locus standi on the part of a private challenger
does not automatically take away a statutory power of suo motu revision, if
such power is available under the applicable provisions. However, the
exercise of such power must independently satisfy the requirements of law
and cannot be justified merely by the fact that an objection has been raised
by a person having no legal interest in the matter.
19. In the present case, the impugned order interferes with the earlier
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
12:47:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34007
10 WP-2709-2014
order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Collector was required to

consider the relevant legal provisions, the nature of the proceedings and the
grounds on which interference was sought. The mere allegation of
irregularity cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient to sustain an order
affecting the petitioner's appointment. The decision must be supported by
legally sustainable reasons and must demonstrate that the power exercised by
the authority was available and was exercised in accordance with law.
20. The petitioner was selected through the process undertaken by the
Gram Panchayat and was appointed pursuant to a resolution. The order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 29.05.2012 was subsequently
interfered with by the Collector. In the circumstances of the present case, and
in view of the objection regarding the maintainability of the challenge by
respondents No. 1 to 4, the impugned order cannot be sustained without a
legally established basis for the interference made by the Collector.
21. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the Collector, Morena, deserves
to be set aside. The challenge raised by respondents No. 1 to 4 cannot be
sustained merely on the basis of their objections when they have not
established the requisite legal interest to question the petitioner's
appointment and the impugned order does not disclose an independently
sustainable basis for interference.
22. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
21.04.2014 passed by the Collector, Morena, is hereby set aside, and the
order dated 29.05.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
12:47:22 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34007
11 WP-2709-2014
Ambah, District Morena, is restored.

23. There shall be no order as to costs.
24. Petition allowed accordingly.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Adnan

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 11/5/2026
12:47:22 PM