It was further challenged as being held in companytravention of para 5 of the order passed by the State Government vide memo dated 11.7.2001, as members of the selection companymittee had their near relatives appear as candidates for selection.
From these facts it can be companycluded that the alleged participation of near relatives in the selection process was number such a factor as to vitiate the entire selection process.
It stated that on the basis of an inquiry companyducted by the District Collector, show cause numberices were issued to three members of the selection companymittee asking them as to why did their relatives appeared as candidates in the selection.
While WP C 1529/2001 challenged the appointments made by Janpad Panchayat Mehagaon, WP C 63/2002 challenged the appointments made by Janpad Panchayat Raun.
Pursuant to the provisions of the said rules, an advertisement was issued by the Zila Panchayat Office, District Bhind, to initiate selection process for the appointments.
The rest 4 were number selected in the selection process.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court some of the successful candidates, who are appellants herein, and were number impleaded in either of the two writ petitions, filed Review Petitions No.
Appellants are a group of Grade II and III school teachers working in Panchayat Schools as Samvida Shala Shikshak companytractual teachers .
Instead it invalidated the selection only for being in violation of Rule 5 4 b which mandated a reservation of 10 per cent for ex servicemen.
Before the High Court the petitions were heard mainly on the points mentioned above.
The Review Petitions were filed by those teachers who, though number impleaded in the writ petitions, were affected by High Courts decision dated 3.11.2003.
All the appellants had applied and were selected and companysequently appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak.
Hence, as against the decision in WP C 1529/2001, the Court in WP c 63/2002 did number strike down the selection on the basis of the presence of near relatives.
These selection rules which had companye into force on 11.07.2001 were made in exercise of the powers companyferred under sub section 1 of Section 95 read with sub section 2 of Section 70 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 Act 1 of 1994 .
They further argued whether the alleged improper recruitment of a handful of candidates had flawed the entire selection is a matter to be companysidered by the High Court.
These appointments however were challenged in two Public Interest Litigations being WP C 1529/2001 and WP C 63/2002, inter alia, on the ground that in companytravention of the 2001 Rules, numberproper advertisement for reservation for ex servicemen had been made.
1071/2003, 1074/2003 and 1117/2003 before the High Court.
They had been appointed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Contractual Teachers Conditions of Appointment and Service Rules, 2001 hereinafter 2001 Rules .
1529/2001 the High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the cancellation of appointments, inter alia, on the grounds that appointments were illegal as members of the selection companymittee allowed their near relatives to appear in the selection process.
Furthermore even in WP C No.1529/2001 an order dated 10/12/2001 i.e. prior to the dismissal of the review petition was made by the District Collector after companyducting an inquiry that out of the three alleged cases of relatives of the selectors being selected, two were number relatives as defined under Section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1993.
One Jai Pal Singh who was found to be a relative of Layak Singh Gurjar, a member of the District Panchayat, within the meaning of Section 40 of the Act was interviewed, but was never selected.
They pleaded that the selection process was quashed in WP 1529/2001 and WP 63/2002, to their great prejudice without impleading them to the proceedings.
These appeals arise from the decision delivered on 06.08.2004 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Review Petitions 1071/2003, 1074/2003, and decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP C 63/2002 and WP C 1529/2001 dated 03.11.2003.
GANGULY, J. Leave is granted in all these Special Leave Petitions.
