Case Law Details
1. The petitioner was appointed as permanent Kotwar of Village Chorbhatti by the appointing authority – Naib Tahsildar, Bilaigarh by order dated 16-7-1997. Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved and dissatisfied against that order, as he was a contestant for the post of Kotwar, filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer against the order appointing the petitioner on the post of Village Kotwar. The Sub Divisional Officer – appellate authority by order dated 30-4-1998, remanded the matter to the Naib Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and orders. The Naib Tahsildar verified the marks sheet of Class-V of the petitioner and held that the marks sheet of the petitioner is forged by order dated 5-9-1998. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh and the Sub Divisional Officer made an enquiry on the marks sheet of the petitioner and found that the marks sheet of the petitioner is genuine and set aside the order of the Tahsildar. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, respondent No. 1 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 9-2-1999. The Board of Revenue by its impugned order framed two questions in para 3 of the order and held that the educational qualification for the post of Kotwar is a must under the Rules framed under Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code’) i.e. the Rules Regarding Appointment, Punishment and Removal of Kotwars and Their Duties, and also held that respondent No.1 is not qualified for the post of Kotwar and directed the Naib Tahsildar to initiate fresh process for appointment on the post of Village Kotwar.
2. Questioning legality, validity and correctness of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating inter alia that the Board of Revenue has committed a legal error in holding that the educational qualification for the post of Kotwar is imperative under Section 230 of the Code, as such, the educational qualification is not prescribed under the Rules and therefore the Board of Revenue has committed legal error in holding that the petitioner is not fulfilling the educational qualification required under Rule 2 of the Rules enacted under Section 230 of the Code and also committed error in holding that the petitioner’s conduct and character are doubtful / suspicious and therefore he is not qualified for the post of Kotwar.
3. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that against the order of the Board of Revenue though respondent No. 1 has been held to be disqualified, but he has not filed writ petition questioning the same and as such, the order of the Board of Revenue has become final. He would further submit that the Board of Revenue is not justified in setting aside the well reasoned order of the Sub Divisional Officer. Therefore, the writ petition be allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue be set aside.
4. Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, would submit that the Board of Revenue has compared the candidature of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and finding that both the persons are not suitable for the post of Kotwar, has rightly directed for holding fresh recruitment for the post of Kotwar as such, the petitioner is guilty of filing forged / suspicious document on record to establish his candidature therefore, his writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and also considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both the parties.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
