Challenging a consequential order without challenging the basic appointment order is not maintainable.

Following an advertisement dated 15.12.2006, the petitioner applied for the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary)

The merit list placed one Prahalad Singh first (54.9% marks) and the petitioner second; however, Prahalad Singh, being employed as a Home Guard, expressed non-willingness to accept the post

Consequently, the petitioner was appointed and joined on 27.12.2006

On 30.12.2006, the Collector declared the petitioner as Secretary

Respondent No. 5 challenged this declaration before the Additional Commissioner without challenging the petitioner's original appointment order

The Additional Commissioner set aside the petitioner’s appointment on 12.03.2007 on the ground that the highest scorer was not appointed, ignoring the fact that the highest scorer had declined the position

The petitioner challenged this reversal via the present writ petition and remained in service due to an interim order dated 11.04.2007

1. Whether the Additional Commissioner erred in setting aside the petitioner's appointment despite the merit-list leader voluntarily declining the post

2. Whether an appeal against a consequential order (the declaration of Secretary status) is maintainable without challenging the primary appointment order

A consequential order cannot be challenged in isolation if the basic/original order remains unchallenged, as established by the Supreme Court in Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan (2010) 1 SCC 417

In a merit-based selection, if the candidate at Serial No. 1 declines, the appointment of the candidate at Serial No. 2 is valid

Section 85 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1998, regarding the maintainability of challenges before the SDO

The Court reasoned that the Additional Commissioner’s order was fundamentally flawed because it failed to consider that Prahalad Singh (the merit leader) had submitted a written refusal to join, thereby making the petitioner the next legitimate candidate for appointment

The Court observed that Prahalad Singh himself never challenged the petitioner's appointment

Crucially, applying the Amarjeet Singh precedent, the Court found that Respondent No. 5 had challenged only the Collector’s declaration of the petitioner as Secretary (the consequential order) without ever challenging the original order of appointment as Panchayat Karmi (the basic order)

Since the basic appointment order was not impugned, the challenge to the consequential declaration was legally impermissible

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 12.03.2007, upholding the petitioner’s appointment as Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) and directing the respondents to grant him all consequential benefits