VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) AS in both the writs common questions involved and similar reliefs have been sought for, so, both the writs have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE basic questions to be decided in these writ applications is whether in absence of approval by the District Panchayat Officer, the appointment to the post of Dalpati can be treated to be valid and legal? The next question is whether the resolution of the Executive Committee to appoint a man of Village Volunteers Force (hereinafter referred to as the force) creates any right to such person which can not be denied by the District Panchayat Officer and the third question is whether the District Panchayat Officer is empowered to cancel the appointment and direct the Gram Panchayat to appoint another person in place of a person whose name has been recommended by the Executive Committee? The short fact of CWJC No. 11139 of 1995 is that the petitioner passed his B.A. Examination and as per his matriculation certificate his date of birth is 15.6.1971. In the year 1992 he became a member of the Force and continued thereon till 1993, when the post of Dalpati became vacant, the Gram Panchayat issued a genera! notice for appointment on the post of Dalpati. 8 persons filed their applications. The petitioners name appeared at serial No. 5. The dates for interview were fixed but were changed and ultimately on 28.6.1993 the interview was held and on 2.7.1993 the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat took a decision to appoint the petitioner as Dalpati and it was also decided by the Committee to send the letter to the District Panchayat Officer for his approval. (Annexure 6) and the Executive Committee also issued an appointment letter to the petitioner (Annexure 7). Thereafter the District Panchayat Officer did not grant approval despite the steps taken by the petitioner. Then finding no other alternative the petitioner filed the writ. CWJC No. 8869 of 1994 and the Court directed (Annexure 9) the District Panchayat Officer to take a final decision in the matter within two months from the date on which a copy of the order was produced before him. It was also directed that if in the meantime the petitioner had actually worked as Dalpati pending approval, he should be paid the pay and allowance payable to such person. Ultimately it was found that certain enquires were conducted and, thereafter, again the Executive Committee filed an affidavit confirming the appointment of the petitioner and sent this to the District Panchayat Officer (vide Annexure 13). In the meanwhile, the petitioner was working as Dalpati. Then it transpires that the approval was not granted (vide Annexure 16) dated 20.9.1995.
(3.) ANNEXURE 6 shows that the resolution for appointment was taken by the Committee and by Annexure 8 the proposal was sent to the District Panchayat Officer for approval. The petitioner has made a prayer for quashing the order No. 123 dated 12.9.1995 by which the appointment of the petitioner was declared illegal and not confirmed also for a direction to approve the appointment of the petitioner.;