The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11834 of 2017 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Kabita Dalai … Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa and others … Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Pani, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA Mr. J. Pattanaik, Advocate(OP Nos. 3-5)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING :21.10.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT:24.12.2024 G. Satapathy, J. 1. This writ petition by the Petitioner prays to quash the letter dated 24.04.2017 issued by BDO, Nimapara–cum-OP No.2 under Annexure-3 and the resolution No. 227 dated 30.04.2017 passed by Gram Panchayat Level Federation (GPLF) Arisandha under Annexure-2 and, consequently to allow the Petitioner to continue in her post. W.P.(C) No.11834 of 2017 Page 1 of 7 2. The background facts are that the Petitioner was working as Community Resource Person(CRP) in Maa Tarini Anchalika Mancha being selected by the competent Authority and while working as such, the Petitioner participated and got elected in the three tire Grama Panchayat Election held in the month of February 2017 as a member of ward No. 10 of Village- Terabatiabindha and even after her election as Ward Member, she was discharging her duty as a CRP of GPLF Arisandha regularly. While the matter stood thus, the Executive Committee Meeting of SURAKSHYA-27, GPLF Arisandha was held in the Federation Office on 30.04.2017 and a resolution(Annexure-2) was passed removing the Petitioner from her post without following the procedure of law and without giving her any prior notice and this decision was on the basis of the letter of BDO, Nimpara dated 24.04.2017 under Annexure-3. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition to quash Annexures- 2 and 3. W.P.(C) No.11834 of 2017 Page 2 of 7 3.
Decision
In response to the notice of the writ petition, OP Nos. 2 and 3 to 5 filed separate counter affidavits, but in essence taking similar plea to the effect that the Petitioner is not entitled to hold two posts simultaneously and thereby, her removal from service as CRP is perfectly in accordance with law. 4. In assailing the Annexures. 2 and 3, Mr. Deepak Kumar Pani, learned counsel for the Petitioner has, however, strongly submitted that the Petitioner was duly selected by the authority and was also working as CRP without any allegation, but when the Petitioner got elected as a Member of Ward No.10 of village- Terabatiabidha, the problem of the Petitioner started, but the removal of the Petitioner from the service of CRP without intimating her and providing her an opportunity is quite contrary to law and violation of principle of natural justice. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on being directed by the BDO, the Petitioner had resigned from the post of Ward Member and thereby, her removal W.P.(C) No.11834 of 2017 Page 3 of 7 from the post of CRP is quite illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law and, therefore, Annexures-2 and 3 being contrary to law are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Mr. Pani, accordingly, has prayed to quash Annexures-2 and 3 by praying to allow the writ petitioner to continue as CRP. 5. In reply, Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned AGA has submitted that since the Petitioner has acted in violation of the guidelines and participated in the election by winning and continuing as Ward Member, her termination from the post of CRP cannot be questioned and, therefore, the writ petition by the Petitioner merits no consideration. Similarly, Mr. Jibakanta Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for OP Nos. 3 to 5 by taking this Court through paragraph nos. 3 to 5 of the writ petition submits that the factual aspect is very clear and the Petitioner was continuing simultaneously in both the posts as CRP and ward Member and thereby, she cannot hold both the post simultaneously in view of the Bar provided in the W.P.(C) No.11834 of 2017 Page 4 of 7 guidelines and Grama Panchayat Act. Accordingly, Mr. Pattnaik, has prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. After having heard the rival submissions upon perusal of record, the moot question comes for discussion in this case is whether the Petitioner could have continued simultaneously in both these posts as CRP and Ward Member or she had to resign from either any one of the posts to continue in the other post. According to paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition, the Petitioner while continuing as CRP had participated in the three tire Grama Panchayat Election and got elected as a Member for ward Member No. 10 of Village Terabatia Bandha in the election held on February, 2017, but the GPLF operation manual annexed by the Petitioner appended to the writ petition under Annexure-1 prescribes the core values at clause 1.2 which states that the GPLF are to be apolitical. Similarly, the eligibility criteria of CRP-CM as found in Clause-4 of such guidelines prescribes that the CRP- CM(she) should not hold any political office or have W.P.(C) No.11834 of 2017 Page 5 of 7 been employed by GO/NGO either on part time or full time basis. Furthermore, Section 25(1)(h) of Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 prescribes that a person shall be disqualified for being elected or nominated as a Sarpanch or any other member of the Gram Panchayat constituted under this act, if he holds any Office of profit under the State or Central Government or any local authority. 7. In terms of own averments, the Petitioner was continuing as CRP and Ward Member simultaneously, but the same is found to be in violation of the GPLF guidelines and provisions of Odisha Grama Panchayats Act and, therefore, the resolution passed by GPLF Arisendha under Annexure-2 cannot be considered as illegal or contrary to the provisions. Further, Annexure- 2 discloses that the Petitioner herself had stated in the meeting expressing her desire not to continue as CRP. Further, Annexure-3 is a letter of the BDO to the President/Secretary of all GPLF, Nimapara Block, wherein it is prescribed that if there is any person W.P.(C) No.11834 of 2017 Page 6 of 7 holding more than one position, he/she should choose one post as soon as possible. The above direction of the BDO cannot be turned as contrary to the law. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, it is highly improper to allow illegality to prevail over legality, since Annexures- 2 and 3 being found to be in conformity legal mandate cannot be quashed. 8. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed on contest, but no order as to costs. (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th day of December, 2024/Priyajit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 24-Dec-2024 14:17:06 W.P.(C) No.11834 of 2017 Page 7 of 7