{"id":58649,"date":"2010-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010"},"modified":"2014-10-01T19:54:36","modified_gmt":"2014-10-01T14:24:36","slug":"rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                                                                           1\n\n\n\n        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR\n\n\n\n\n                       Writ Petition No : 80 OF 2009 (s)\n\n\n\n                                  Rewat Singh Maravi\n                                        - V\/s -\n                          State of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others\n\n\n\nPresent :              Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n               Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner.\n               Shri Harish Agnihotri, Government Advocate for respondents\/State.\n               Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.2.\n               Shri Greeshm Jain with Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for\nrespondent No.6.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                                       ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                     (20 \/ 07 \/ 2010)<\/p>\n<p>               Challenging the order annexure P-1 dated 15\/12\/08, passed<br \/>\nby the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Dindori, cancelling<br \/>\nappointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi and<br \/>\ndirected for appointment of respondent No.6 on the post in question,<br \/>\npetitioner has filed this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.             Petitioner claims to be a graduate in arts subject and<br \/>\neligible for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi on the basis of<br \/>\nmarks obtained by him in the High School Examination i.e. 10+2,<br \/>\ndocuments showing the qualification and marks obtained by the<br \/>\npetitioner are annexure P-2. It is the case of petitioner that the Gram<br \/>\nPanchayat Guraiya under Janpad Panchayat Shahpura, district Dindori<br \/>\nissued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Panchayat<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Karmi vide annexure P-3. Applications were to be submitted between<br \/>\n25\/07\/07 to 02\/08\/07. 17 applications were received by the concerned<br \/>\ngram panchayat. Appointments were to be made in accordance to the<br \/>\ncircular annexure P-4 dated 31\/07\/07. After evaluating the qualification<br \/>\nof various candidates, it is the case of petitioner that the Gram<br \/>\nPanchayat recommended for appointment of the petitioner vide<br \/>\nresolution annexure P-5 dated 14\/08\/07. On the basis of the aforesaid<br \/>\nresolution Gram Panchayat issued order&#8217;s of appointment dated<br \/>\n16\/08\/07 appointing the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi. On<br \/>\nthe same day an intimation regarding appointment of petitioner was<br \/>\nsent by the Gram Panchayat to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad<br \/>\nPanchayat Shahpura vide annexure P-7. Petitioner joined on the post on<br \/>\n17\/08\/07 vide annexure P-8 and while he was so working it is the case<br \/>\nof petitioner that by the impugned order the Chief Executive Officer<br \/>\nhas terminated the service of the petitioner. Petitioner further points out<br \/>\nthat after joining of the petitioner vide annexure P-10 and P-11 the<br \/>\nGram Panchayat requested the Collector and the Chief Executive<br \/>\nOfficer to notify the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary, however,<br \/>\ninstead of notifying the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary, under<br \/>\nSection 69(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj<br \/>\nAdhiniyam, 1993 the impugned action is taken, which according to the<br \/>\npetitioner is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.          Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\ninviting my attention to the provisions of Section 85 of the Panchayat<br \/>\nRaj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the<br \/>\n&#8216;Adhiniyam of 1993&#8217;) argued that the power to suspend or execution of<br \/>\norder or resolution is only conferred on State Government or authorized<br \/>\nofficer and such section does not authorize the Chief Executive Officer<br \/>\nto terminate service of the petitioner, who had already joined and was<br \/>\nworking. Accordingly, contending that the Chief Executive Officer had<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>no authority or power to take action under Section 85 of the<br \/>\nAdhiniyam, of 1993, interference into the matter is sought for.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.          The second ground canvassed by learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner is that, in the present case petitioner had already joined on the<br \/>\npost and was working on the post when the impugned action was taken.<br \/>\nContending that the petitioner having joined on the post and as he was<br \/>\nalready working on the post, his services could not be terminated in the<br \/>\nmanner done, without granting him opportunity and without following<br \/>\nthe principles of natural justice. Accordingly, contending that the<br \/>\nrespondents have taken action in the matter in an illegal manner,<br \/>\npetitioner seeks interference into the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.          It was emphasized by Smt. Amrit Ruprah that resolution<br \/>\npassed by the Gram Panchayat have been interfered with by the Chief<br \/>\nExecutive Officer in an illegal manner and, therefore, the same is<br \/>\nunsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.          Respondents have filed separate returns.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.          So far as the State Government is concerned, it is the case<br \/>\nof State Government that after the resolution was passed by the Gram<br \/>\nPanchayat and when the appointment of the petitioner was made and<br \/>\nwhen papers were sent to the Chief Executive Officer for notifying the<br \/>\npetitioner as Secretary under Section 69(1), it was found by the Chief<br \/>\nExecutive Officer that petitioner is not the most meritorious person and<br \/>\nignoring the merit of the candidates the less meritorious candidate i.e.<br \/>\nthe petitioner has been appointed. Accordingly, the Chief Executive<br \/>\nOfficer pointing out infirmity in the matter of appointment, contrary to<br \/>\nthe merit of the candidates as per the circular of the State Government<br \/>\nwith regard to appointment on merit which was ignored, proposal was<br \/>\nmade to the Collector for exercising powers under Section 86(6), the<br \/>\nCollector accepting the same directed for cancellation of appointment<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>of the petitioner and for appointment of respondent No.6, who was<br \/>\nfound to be more meritorious than the petitioner. Accordingly, bringing<br \/>\non record the combined merit list showing respondent No.6 to be more<br \/>\nmeritorious then petitioner i.e. annexure R-1, the powers conferred by<br \/>\nthe State Government vide annexure R-5 dated 13\/08\/07 in the matter<br \/>\nof appointment on merit. Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.          Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the Janpad Panchayat<br \/>\nargues that in the present case contention of the petitioner to the effect<br \/>\nthat the Chief Executive Officer has exercised power is not correct. He<br \/>\npoints out that the entire power is exercised by the Collector, who is<br \/>\nempowered to do so under Section 86(2) and, therefore, there is no<br \/>\nillegality in the matter. Referring to the requirement of the circular<br \/>\nannexure R-5 dated 13\/08\/07 and merit to be determined on the basis of<br \/>\nmarks obtained in High School 10+2 Examination, Shri V.K. Shukla<br \/>\npoints out that petitioner had received 47.54 marks in the said<br \/>\nexamination, whereas respondent No.6 had received 52.20 marks. That<br \/>\nbeing so, as merit was ignored and less meritorious candidate was<br \/>\nappointed, Shri Shukla submits that action taken by the Collector does<br \/>\nnot warrant any interference. Inviting my attention to the judgment of a<br \/>\nFull Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Rana Vs. State of M.P.<br \/>\n&amp; Ors. AIR 2010 M.P., 1, and a Division Bench judgment in the case<br \/>\nof Leelawati (Smt.) &amp; Anr. Vs. State of M.P. &amp; Ors., ILR (2008)<br \/>\nM.P. 2817, Shri Vijay Shukla argues that the Collector has power to<br \/>\ntake action in the matter under Section 86(2) and in doing so, he has not<br \/>\ncommitted any error.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.          Shri Jain and Shri Pandey, learned counsel for respondent<br \/>\nNo.6, apart from adopting the arguments of Shri Agnihotri and Shri<br \/>\nShukla submits that as statutory remedy of appeal is available to the<br \/>\npetitioner under the Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, therefore,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>a writ petition directly before this Court is not maintainable. In support<br \/>\nof the aforesaid contention, they invites my attention to the principles<br \/>\nlaid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs.<br \/>\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd &amp; Anr. 2003(3) SCC, 524, and Star<br \/>\nPaper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. &amp; Others, 2006(10), SCC,\n<\/p>\n<p>201.<\/p>\n<p>10.         Smt. Amrit Ruprah, further submitted that availability of<br \/>\nalternate remedy is not a ground for not exercising jurisdiction under<br \/>\nArticle 226 and in support thereof places reliance on a judgment<br \/>\nrendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhu<br \/>\nDayal Patel Vs. State of M.P. &amp; Anr. 2003(5) MPHT, 502, and<br \/>\ncontends that removal of the petitioner without granting opportunity is<br \/>\nillegal. Reliance is also placed on a judgment rendered by a Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court in the case of Satendra Singh Vs. S.D.O. Lahar, 1998(1)<br \/>\nMPWN, 44.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.         I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<br \/>\noriginal records produced by Shri Harish Agnihotri with regard to<br \/>\naction that has been taken in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.         Before adverting to consider the rival contention it would<br \/>\nbe appropriate to take note of procedure to be followed for<br \/>\nappointment. The State Government has issued a circular as contained<br \/>\nin annexure R-5 dated 13\/08\/07 and according to the aforesaid circular<br \/>\na candidate should be High School (10+2) passed and the certificate<br \/>\nand mark-sheet of the said examination should be submitted. Apart<br \/>\nfrom prescribing various criterias the circular contemplates that<br \/>\nappointment to the post has to be strictly on the basis of merit and<br \/>\nmarks obtained in the High School Examination should be the<br \/>\ndetermining factor. Apart from the same various other benefits are to be<br \/>\nextended, which are not relevant for deciding the present case. So far as<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>present case is concerned, records indicate that after the advertisement<br \/>\nwas issued and the process of selection was initiated, 17 applications<br \/>\nwere received for appointment on the post in question. Out of the 17<br \/>\napplications received, a combined merit list was prepared and the same<br \/>\nis filed by the State Government as annexure R-1. There is no dispute<br \/>\nwith regard to the fact that as per merit in the category in question, the<br \/>\npetitioner whose name appears at Sr. No.3 had received 47.54 marks in<br \/>\nthe High School Certificate Examination and after considering the total<br \/>\ncriterias i.e. the marks obtained in the High School Examination, the<br \/>\nmarks obtained in the graduation level, it is found that he has received<br \/>\nless marks than respondent No.6, Shri Surendra Mishra both in the<br \/>\nHigh School level and in graduation level. Petitioner, as already<br \/>\nindicated hereinabove, had received 47.54 marks in the High School<br \/>\nExamination, whereas respondent No.6 has received 52.20 marks in the<br \/>\nsaid examination. That being so, as per criteria laid down by the State<br \/>\nGovernment, respondent No.6 was more meritorious than the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.           Accordingly, inspite of the aforesaid when the Gram<br \/>\nPanchayat passed the resolution appointing the petitioner, a less<br \/>\nmeritorious candidate and when the papers were forwarded to the Chief<br \/>\nExecutive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Shahpura for taking action for<br \/>\nnotifying the petitioner&#8217;s name as a Secretary of the Panchayat under<br \/>\nSection 69, the Chief Executive Officer found that, contrary to the<br \/>\nrequirement of circular annexure R-5, a less meritorious candidate has<br \/>\nbeen selected for appointment. He, therefore, placed the matter before<br \/>\nthe Collector for exercising powers under Section 86(2), the Collector<br \/>\nwent through records and found that it is respondent No.6, who should<br \/>\nhave been appointed, instead a less meritorious candidate has been<br \/>\nappointed. Accordingly, the Collector issued direction to the Chief<br \/>\nExecutive Officer to issue appointment order appointing the more<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>meritorious person i.e. respondent No.6. Accordingly, the impugned<br \/>\norder has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, as directed by<br \/>\nthe Collector. The question, therefore, would be, as to whether the<br \/>\nCollector had the power to do so ?\n<\/p>\n<p>14.         Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel emphasized that under<br \/>\nSection 85 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, the Collector or the State<br \/>\nGovernment is only authorized to suspend execution of a resolution or<br \/>\na order and cannot cancel the appointment or direct for appointment of<br \/>\nany other person.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.         On the contrary, respondents have placed reliance of<br \/>\nSection 86(2) and contend that the power can be exercised by Collector<br \/>\nunder this Section.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.         It is not in dispute that the Collector is the prescribed<br \/>\nauthority for exercising power under Section 86(2) of the Adhiniyam of<br \/>\n1993 and in the case of Leelawati (supra), a Division Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt has considered this question and in para 3 &amp; 4 the matter has<br \/>\nbeen so dealt with :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;3.     We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission<br \/>\n            of Mr. Arjaria Section 86 of the Adhiniyam is quoted<br \/>\n            hereinbelow:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                    86. Power of State Government to issue order<br \/>\n                    directing Panchayat for execution of works in<br \/>\n                    certain cases &#8211; (1) The State Government or the<br \/>\n                    prescribed authority may, by an order in writing,<br \/>\n                    direct any panchayat to perform any duty imposed<br \/>\n                    upon it, by or under this Act, or by or under any<br \/>\n                    other law for the time being in force or any work as<br \/>\n                    is not being performed or executed, as the case<br \/>\n                    may be, by it and the performance or execution<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      thereof by such Panchayat is, in the opinion of the<br \/>\n      State   Government      or      prescribed   authority,<br \/>\n      necessary in public interest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      (2) The Panchayat shall bound to comply with<br \/>\n      direction issued under sub-section(1) and if it fails<br \/>\n      to do so [the State Government or the prescribed<br \/>\n      authority shall have all necessary powers to get the<br \/>\n      directions complied with at the expense, if any, of<br \/>\n      the Panchayat] and in exercising such powers it<br \/>\n      shall be entitled to the same protection and the<br \/>\n      same extent under this Act as the Panchayat or its<br \/>\n      officers or servants whose powers are exercised.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      It will be clear from sub-section (1) of Section 86<br \/>\nof the Adhiniyam that the State Government and the<br \/>\nprescribed authority may by an order direct any<br \/>\npanchayat to perform any duty imposed upon it by or<br \/>\nunder the Act or under any other law for the time being in<br \/>\nforce. It will be further clear from sub-section (2) of<br \/>\nSection 86 of the Adhiniyam that the panchayat shall be<br \/>\nbound to comply with the direction issued under Sub-<br \/>\nsection (1) and if it fails to do the State Government or<br \/>\nthe prescribed authority shall have all necessary powers<br \/>\nto get the directions complied with at the expense, if any,<br \/>\nof the panchayat and in exercising such powers it will be<br \/>\nentitled to the same protection and the same extent under<br \/>\nthe Act as the panchayat or its officers or servants<br \/>\nexercise such powers.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    In the instant case, it is not disputed that Collector<br \/>\nwho was the prescribed authority issued a direction to the<br \/>\nGram Panchayat, Baroli to perform its duty of appointing<br \/>\na Panchayat Karmi under Section 70(1) of the Adhiniyam<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n<p>            and that the Gram Panchayat, Baroli failed to comply<br \/>\n            with such directions. Hence, under sub-section (2) of<br \/>\n            Section 86 of the Adhiniyam, the Collector as the<br \/>\n            prescribed authority had the power to get this direction<br \/>\n            complied with. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 86 of<br \/>\n            the Adhiniyam the State Government or the prescribed<br \/>\n            authority also have all necessary powers to get the<br \/>\n            directions complied with. The expression &#8220;all necessary<br \/>\n            powers&#8221; will include the power to authorize any authority<br \/>\n            to perform the duty of the panchayat such as appointment<br \/>\n            of a Panchayat Karmi under sub-section (1) of Section 70<br \/>\n            of the Adhiniyam. Hence the Collector as the prescribed<br \/>\n            authority had the power under sub-section (2) of Section<br \/>\n            86 of the Adhiniyam to authorize the Chief Executive<br \/>\n            Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ajaygarh to appoint a<br \/>\n            Panchayat Karmi and the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad<br \/>\n            Panchayat, Ajaygarh by virtue of such authorization had<br \/>\n            also the power to select and appoint a Panchayat Karmi<br \/>\n            of the Gram Panchayat. But since the order of<br \/>\n            appointment is issued pursuant to authorization by the<br \/>\n            prescribed authority, the order of appointment is to be<br \/>\n            treated as an order passed by the prescribed authority.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                   (Emphasis Supplied)<\/p>\n<p>17.         If the aforesaid enunciation of law is taken note of, it is<br \/>\nclear that the Division Bench has clearly laid down that the Collector<br \/>\nhas authority to direct for appointment of a Panchayat Karmi and the<br \/>\nChief Executive Officer can, if directed by the Collector issue the order<br \/>\nof appointment. Once it is held by a Division Bench that the power<br \/>\nconferred to Collector under Section 86(2) is wide enough and the<br \/>\nexpression &#8220;all necessary power&#8221;, includes power to direct appointment<br \/>\nand selection, I am of the considered view that ground that has raised<br \/>\nby Smt. Amrit Ruprah cannot be accepted. A Full Bench also in the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           10<\/span><\/p>\n<p>case of Pawan Rana (supra) has considered the said question and in<br \/>\npara 10 &amp; 11, the matter has been so dealt with :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;10. The expression &#8220;all necessary powers&#8221; in Section<br \/>\n            86(2) is very wide and will mean all the powers that the<br \/>\n            panchayat has under the Adhiniyam, 1993. This will be<br \/>\n            clear from Section 86(2) which states that in exercising<br \/>\n            such powers, the State Government or the prescribed<br \/>\n            authority &#8220;shall be entitled to the same protection and the<br \/>\n            same extent under the Act as the Panchayat whose<br \/>\n            powers are exercised.&#8221; The object of the Legislature in<br \/>\n            making such a provision in Section 86(2) is to ensure that<br \/>\n            if the Panchayat fails to perform any particular duty<br \/>\n            conferred on it under the Act despite directions issued by<br \/>\n            the State Government or the prescribed authority under<br \/>\n            Section 86(1), the State Government or the prescribed<br \/>\n            authority must have the required powers to get the<br \/>\n            directions complied with and when the State Government<br \/>\n            or the prescribed authority exercises such necessary<br \/>\n            powers, it will be deemed as if the Panchayat has<br \/>\n            exercised its powers under the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            11.   This interpretation of Sections 86(1) and (2)<br \/>\n            suggested by us is in accordance with the well settled<br \/>\n            principle of interpretation that the provision of a statute<br \/>\n            must be so construed as to make it effective and<br \/>\n            operative. In Tinsukha Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. State<br \/>\n            of Assam, (AIR 1990, SC 123), M.V. Venkatchaliah, J.<br \/>\n            as he then was, speaking for himself and R.S. Pathak,<br \/>\n            C.J., S. Natrajan and S. Ranganathan, JJ. observed in<br \/>\n            paragraph 49 at page 152 of the AIR:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                          &#8220;The Courts strongly lean against any<br \/>\n                  construction which tends to reduce a Statute to a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                  futility. The provision of a Statute must be so<br \/>\n                  construed as to make it effective and operative, on<br \/>\n                  the principle &#8216;ut res majis valeat quam periat&#8217;.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                  Unless, therefore, we take the view that under<br \/>\n            Section 86(2) the State Government or the prescribed<br \/>\n            authority can exercise the same powers as that of the<br \/>\n            Panchayat through one officer or the other where the<br \/>\n            Panchayat fails to comply with the directions of the State<br \/>\n            Government or the prescribed authority, the provision in<br \/>\n            Section 86(2) will be rendered futile and unworkable.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                                  (Emphasis Supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>18.         If the principles of law as laid down by the Full Bench in<br \/>\nthe case of Pawan Rana (supra) is taken note of, it is crystal clear that<br \/>\nthe Collector in exercise of the power conferred on him under Section<br \/>\n86(2) can direct for appointment or selection of Panchayat Karmi and if<br \/>\nCollector has power to direct for appointment of Panchayat Karmi, the<br \/>\npower to direct for making correction in selection or canceling<br \/>\nappointment illegally made would also come within the power<br \/>\nconferred on the Collector. In that view of the matter, the first ground<br \/>\ncanvassed by Smt. Amrit Ruprah is found to be wholly unsustainable.<\/p>\n<p>19.         So far as second ground is concerned, it is only pointed out<br \/>\nby Smt. Amrit Ruprah that the petitioner who had joined and was<br \/>\nworking on the post has been removed without granting opportunity.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.         Grant of opportunity of hearing and compliance with the<br \/>\nprinciple of natural justice is not an empty formality. Merely because<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing or defence is not granted, that by itself is not a<br \/>\nground, in each and every case to interfere with an action. The<br \/>\ncorresponding question with regard to prejudice caused due to non-<br \/>\ngrant of opportunity and consequently effect of the same on the final<br \/>\noutcome has to be taken note of by a writ court before interfering into<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n<p>matter on such consideration. That being so, merely because,<br \/>\nopportunity is not granted, that by itself is not a ground for interfering<br \/>\nin the matter. This Court is further required to analyze the merit of the<br \/>\ncase and find out if non-grant of opportunity had caused an adverse<br \/>\neffect on the right of the petitioner and has consequently prejudiced his<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.         Except for contending that petitioner has not been granted<br \/>\nopportunity and his appointment has been cancelled, nothing is brought<br \/>\nto the notice of this Court on the basis of which it can be held that<br \/>\naction of respondents in granting appointment to a more meritorious<br \/>\ncandidate is illegal. It is common ground that appointment to the post in<br \/>\nquestion has to be made on the basis of merit to be evaluated on the<br \/>\nbasis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination i.e. High School<br \/>\n10+2 Examination. Admittedly, in the present case if the marks<br \/>\nobtained by the petitioner and respondent No.6 are evaluated, the<br \/>\ncombined merit list annexure R-1 shows that petitioner had obtained<br \/>\n47.54 marks and respondent No.6 had obtained 52.20 marks. The<br \/>\ncombined merit list indicates that in the category of Schedule Tribe<br \/>\ncandidates in all out of 11 eligible candidates there were 4 candidates,<br \/>\nthey were, the petitioner, respondent No.6 and one Heera Singh and<br \/>\nRajesh Maravi. So far as Heera Singh is concerned, he had obtained<br \/>\n49.38 marks in the qualifying examination and Rajesh Maravi had<br \/>\nreceived 41.40 marks, petitioner had received 47.54 marks and<br \/>\nrespondent No.6 had received 52.20 marks. The merit list was prepared<br \/>\nby the Collector and finding respondent No.6 Surendra Singh to have<br \/>\nreceived the highest marks in the category Schedule Tribe i.e. 52.20<br \/>\nmarks, he was directed to be appointed. If that be the position on merit<br \/>\nand if a more meritorious candidate has been appointed by the<br \/>\nCollector, merely because opportunity of hearing is not granted to<br \/>\npetitioner that by itself is not a ground to interfere in the matter. Once it<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           13<\/span><\/p>\n<p>is held by this Court that the Collector has power to pass such or order<br \/>\nunder Section 86(2) and further when it is found that the Collector after<br \/>\nevaluating the records had ordered for appointing the more meritorious<br \/>\ncandidate, accordingly, on the ground that petitioner&#8217;s appointment is<br \/>\ncancelled without granting opportunity, it is not in the interest of justice<br \/>\nto interfere in the matter by remanding the matter to the competent<br \/>\nauthority for deciding the claim afresh after hearing the petitioner.<br \/>\nPetitioner is unable to demonstrate before this Court as to how and in<br \/>\nwhat manner grant of opportunity would make any difference to the<br \/>\nposition of merit and the final outcome.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.         Accordingly, I am of the considered view that grant of<br \/>\nopportunity to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case<br \/>\nwould be a empty formality and in the absence of any injustice or<br \/>\nprejudice caused to the petitioner by non-grant of opportunity, the<br \/>\naforesaid ground is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>23.         Having considered the question on merit and having found<br \/>\nthat the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on merit and as there<br \/>\nis no illegality in cancellation of the appointment as ordered by the<br \/>\nCollector, it is not necessary now to go into the question of existence of<br \/>\nalternate remedy. Accordingly, finding no case for interference on the<br \/>\nground raised by the petitioner and further finding on merit this petition<br \/>\nto be devoid of substance, the same is dismissed, no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                            (RAJENDRA MENON)<br \/>\n                                                 JUDGE<br \/>\nss*\n <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No : 80 OF 2009 (s) Rewat Singh Maravi &#8211; V\/s &#8211; State of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others Present : Hon&#8217;ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; Smt. Amrit [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-01T14:24:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-01T14:24:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3630,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-01T14:24:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-01T14:24:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-01T14:24:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010"},"wordCount":3630,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010","name":"Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-01T14:24:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rewat-singh-maravi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rewat Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58649"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58649\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}