Officiating Sarpanch lacks locus standi to challenge reinstatement of the original Sarpanch.

Respondent No. 4 was removed from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nagdi on 25.07.2024. Consequently, the Petitioner, a Panch, was appointed as the officiating Sarpanch under Section 38 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993

Respondent No. 4 appealed her removal, and on 17.03.2026, the Commissioner Chambal Division allowed the appeal and ordered her reinstatement

The Petitioner challenged this reinstatement order via the present writ petition. Respondent No. 4 raised a preliminary objection regarding the Petitioner’s locus standi to maintain the petition

1. Whether an officiating Sarpanch appointed due to a casual vacancy has the locus standi to challenge an order reinstating the original Sarpanch

2. Whether the Petitioner qualifies as a "person aggrieved" whose legal or fundamental rights were infringed by the impugned order

Section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, which governs the temporary filling of casual vacancies

Definition of an "aggrieved person" as one who has suffered a legal grievance or wrongful deprivation, as established in V.D. Kumarappan v. Secretary, Home Department, Trivandrum

Principles from Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others, which hold that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable unless the petitioner’s own legal rights are directly or substantially invaded, or they are personally affected by the order

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner’s appointment was purely interim and temporary, intended only to discharge duties until a regular election or lawful reinstatement occurred

Under Section 38 of the Adhiniyam, such an arrangement does not vest any substantive, enforceable, or permanent legal right in the appointee

The Court found that once Respondent No. 4 was lawfully reinstated by the appellate authority, the Petitioner’s officiating status automatically terminated

Applying the precedents, the Court determined that the withdrawal of charge from an officiating appointee does not constitute a "legal injury" or "direct injury to interest"

Since the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any personal or fundamental right being invaded, she could not be classified as a "person aggrieved" in the eyes of the law

An officiating Sarpanch has no legal right to challenge the reinstatement of a regular Sarpanch because no vested right was infringed

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition