Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Power of State Government to issue order directing Panchayat for execution of works in certain cases.-1[(l) The State Government or the prescribed authority may, by an order In writing, direct anyPanchayat to perform any duty imposed upon it, by or under I Subs. by MP 43 of 199715-12-19971. c,c affirmed in terms of the provisions of S.85 of the Act. This v'as not done by the prescribed authority, i.e. the SDO. He was not required to look into the claim made in the appeal filed by the private respondents, if the appeal was directed against the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. On the other hand, it was to be treated as a complaint under S.85 of the Act or the' concerned appellants were to be directed to file the appeal against the order of appointment and not against the resolution. Raj!?umar Kushwaha v. State of M.P., 2013(1) MPLJ 238 = 2013(1) MPWN 24 = ILR 2013 MP 53 . (2)Gross irregularities/improper procedure would be cure even in writ petition.-The Court cannot shut its eyes to the gross irregularities committed in the matter of appointment in case the same is brought to the notice in the Court even in "awrit petition filed against such an order passed by the SDO. Entire process was not initiated by the Gram Panchayat in appropriate manner and improperly the resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat for making appointment of Panchayat Karmi. Such an act of Gram Panchayat cannot be approved. High Court in various cases found that improper procedure has been adopted by the Gram Panchayats for making appointments ofPanchayat Karmis, so that such persons after their notification as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, may act according to the choice of the concerned Sarpanch. This is not the object of making such a scheme and, therefore, the High Court will not hesitate in quashing such proceedings. Rajkumar Kushwaha v. State of M.P., 2013(1) MPLJ .238= 2013(1) MPWN 24 = ILR 2013 MP /'i3. (3) Criteria for appointment. Scheme required that the marks obtained in the 10th class shall decide the fate of the candidate. 2nd respondent was having higher marks than the petitioner. However ignoring the merit, the petitioner was appointed only'on the basis of majority of votes casted in his favour in the meeting ofthe Gram Panchayat. Petitioner's appointment on the basis of majority of votes was illegal and therefore set aside. Mahesh v. State of M.P., 2010(3) MPLJ 470.