Punam Singh v. Jaitram

^ Jaitram S/o Jethu Ram R/o Village Sero, Tah. Malkharoida Distt. Janjgeer-Champa(C.G.) / i ft2\ ...tC'^2 i^-^^ f 5 x^-.^t.&^-ri; !^f ^^.y'" T^.--" <^6?-' ^0'.'^^'/.^' ^

Rainkumar Ware S/o TUiara R/o Village Sero, Tah. MaUdiaroida Distt. Jaiijgeer-Champa (C.G.) Mauki Bai W/o Jethuram R/o Village Sero, Tah. Malkharoida Dis.tt. Janjgeer-Champa (C.G.)

$

Board of Revenue, Through Its Member, Bialspur (C.G.) • Sub-Divisional OfGcer, (Revenue) Sati, DisttJanjgeer-Champa )C.G.) Tahsildar, Malkhroida Distt. Janjgeer-Champa(C.G.) PETmON CNDER ARTICLES 22&22? OF THE CONSITITNON t INDIA H1GH_COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AJLBIJ-ASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1602 of 2004 PETITIONER Punam Singh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Jaitram S Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shrj Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:

Sh.ri N.N.Roy, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 5 & 6. ORDER (OPEN COURT) (Passed on 15"' day of February, 2013)

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23.03.2004 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, affirming the order dated

13.01.2003, passed by the Sub DivisionalOfficer (Revenue) Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, whereunder the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Kotwar, was cancelled

Shri Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner was recommended by majority of members of the Gram Panchayat for appointment on the post of Kotwar in village Sero, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa.

3. The father of the first respondent was working as Kotwar. On his death, the Gram Panchayat, resolution dated 11.05.2002 (Annexure P/3) recommerided the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Kotwar. The petitioner is the grand son of the original Kotwar namely Jethu Ram. The Tahsildar, Malkharoda, by order dated 03.08.2002 (Annexure P/5) accepted the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat, and without ".MS!K ••:'.j!*&S^K-W*-S«KlSK..r, vD ^ verification of the age and other criteria, as prescribed, appointed the -2- petitioner as Kotwar.

Thereagainst, the first respondent filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), who, by order dated 13.01.2003 (Annexure P/6),. examined the case and on noticing that the petitioner had not completed even the'ag&^if 21 years and also experience'of assisting the Kotwar was to his attaining age of even 18 years, set aside the order of appointment. The same was contrary to the provisions of Rule 2 of the Rules made under section 230-of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (forshort 'the Rutes'). Accordingly, the appeal of the respondent No. 1 was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar for re- consdieration. Against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed affirming the view taken by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue).

5. Indisputably, the petitioner had not attained the age of 21 years on the date he was considered by Gram Panchayat. When the order of appointment was passed, accordingly to learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly, the petitioner was 18 years of age.

6. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had worked as temporary Kotwar for a period of three years and having regard to his experience of working as Kotwar, case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment. This contention cannot be countenanced. Experience of the petitioner was not of Kotwar but of assisting the Kotwar. h4ow, a chlid *»> •• -3- having 15 years of age could be appointed to assist the Kotwar when he needs proper care and education.

Shri Nigam learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent submits that the petitioner was assisting his grand father who was in advanced stage of his age. This cannot be the criteria to appoint a person who does not fulfill thp requirement of basic age.

Rule 3 of the Rules clearly provides that no person shall be eligible for the post of Kotwar who, inter alia, \s below the age of 21 years and thereafter, question of grant of preference to the near relative of the ex-Kotwar in case of other things being equal, is provided under Rule 4(2). Here, all parties are near relatives. Further, grant of appointment in favour of the petitioner, who was 18 years of age at that point of time, is not only illegal, but against the basic norms of the society wherein persons below 21 years of age are encouraged to go for education and other developmental activities of his personality.

The Tahsildar committed serious mistake by approving the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, without verifying the facts, and granting appointment to the petitioner, who had not attained the age of employment /.e. 21 years.

The order dated 23.03.2004 passed by the Board of Revenue as well as affirming the order dated 13.01.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), is just and proper. No interference is warranted