MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT FOR RAMNATH AHIRWAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, March 25 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20:

1. By the instant intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.2364 of 2009, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 16.02.1996 and resolution dated 15.02.1996, was dismissed.

2. The short facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Panchayat Karmi by order dated 30.10.1995, which was issued in furtherance of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, wherein the Gram Panchayat decided to appoint the appellant for a period of 89 days. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat passed another resolution on 15.02.1996 to appoint the respondent No.6 in place of appellant. In furtherance of resolution dated 15.02.1996, appointment order was issued in favour of respondent No.6 on 16.02.1996. Appellant challenged the resolution and appointment order of respondent No.6 in an appeal before SDO, which was dismissed by observing that the appointment of the appellant was temporary in nature and was for a period of 89 days only and, therefore, he has no right to continue and challenge the appointment of respondent No.6. Appellant assailed the order passed by SDO before Collector and, thereafter, before Commissioner unsuccessfully. Thereafter, the subject writ petition was filed, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.07.2025.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the appellant was appointed by order dated 30.10.1995, wherein it was not mentioned that he had been appointed for a period of 89 days only. No letter or show-cause notice was issued to the appellant before appointing respondent No.6 in place of appellant. Appellant permitted to work till 15.02.1996. The Gram Panchayat had no authority to appoint the respondent No.6 by passing a resolution in place of appellant. He submits that the action of Gram Panchayat was contrary to the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the resolution dated 15.02.1996, by which respondent No.6 was proposed to be appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi and his appointment order dated 16.02.1996 are liable to be quashed and appellant be directed to reinstate on the said post.

4. Learned Government Advocate supported the order passed by learned Writ Court and submits that the appellant is not working since 15.02.1996 and after a period of 32 years, no such relief can be granted to the appellant.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2025/WA/2300/WA_2300_2025_FinalOrder_20-02-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.