Authorities must adjudicate selection using secondary evidence and hearings despite missing original records.

This is the second round of litigation concerning the appointment of a Panchayat Karmi for Gram Panchayat Tilonjari, District Morena.

In the first round, the High Court in W.A. No. 82/2012 (dated 09.07.2012) directed the Collector, Morena, to examine the selection of candidates (Harshvardhan Sharma, Naval Singh Dhakad, and the petitioner) and pass a fresh order after hearing objections.

However, the Collector issued the impugned order stating that since the selection records were unavailable at the Gram Panchayat, a fresh selection process would be initiated.

The petitioner challenged this, asserting that he possessed photocopies of the relevant records and that the Collector should decide the matter based on those documents and a hearing of the affected parties.

1. Whether the respondent/Collector was justified in ordering a fresh selection process solely on the ground of the non-availability of official records, despite previous judicial directions to decide the existing selection dispute.

2. Whether the Collector is mandated to consider secondary evidence (photocopies/objections) and provide a personal hearing to resolve the appointment dispute as per the earlier Court order.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The decision is grounded in the principle that administrative authorities must strictly comply with specific judicial directions issued by a Writ Court.

Furthermore, it applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing and the consideration of available evidence (including objections and documents submitted by parties) when official records are purportedly missing.

The Court observed that the Writ Court had previously issued explicit directions in W.A. No. 82/2012 to adjudicate the claims of the three specific candidates after affording them an opportunity to be heard.

The Court found that the Collector failed to comply with these directions by summarily ordering a fresh selection process due to missing records.

The Court deemed the petitioner’s contention—that the matter could be resolved by examining the photocopies of records and hearing the objections of the affected candidates—to be reasonable.

It reasoned that the lack of original records does not absolve the Collector of the duty to fulfill judicial mandates, especially when the parties are willing to produce documentation and evidence to facilitate a decision on the merits of the original selection.

It directed the Collector, Morena, to decide the appointment of the Panchayat Karmi for Gram Panchayat Tilonjari based on the documents and objections submitted by Harshvardhan Sharma, Naval Singh Dhakad, and the petitioner.

The Court ordered that a personal hearing must be granted to these parties and the direction must be complied with within three months of receipt of the order.

The Court clarified it did not express any opinion on the merits of the candidates.