Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
The appeal was preferred by respondents Nos. 8 to 11 against the said appointment of the petitioner, before the SDO and in fact, instead of challenging the order of appointment of the petitioner, the resqlution of the Gram Panchayat was sought.0 i:>echallengeq, The.said .•• 'resolution was nof to .be challEmged in such a manner and therefore, such an appeal was not maintainable. The appeaI.was liable to be dismissed, but instead of dismissing the appeal, the same was allowed and the order of appointment of the petitioner was sought to be cancelled by setting aside the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. It is contended that such power was not conferred on the SDO and as such the order was non est in the eye of law. Only on the basis of such an order, the petitioner was not to be terminated and, therefore, the writ petition was required to be filed. True itls that a resolution of the Gram Panchayat is not to be challenged before the Appellate Authority asthe same'isnot treated as an 'order. The' Division Bench of the High Court in various cases, has held that only an order consequent upon the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, appointing any person as Panchayat Karmi, is appellable under S.91 of the Act as also under the Rules known as M.P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules,