Smt. Hirdesh Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and another

Appellant is the writ petitioner. Appellant was suspended as Gram Pradhan by the District Magistrate.

Appellant sought stay of the impugned order. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Stay Application. The learned counsel for the appellant, in fact, pointed to the fact that there is no provision in the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 to remove Pradhan on the ground that he had obtained caste certificate wrongly. This is a case where, actually, the Screening Committee appears to have found that the appellant does not belong to Scheduled Caste community and belongs to Other Backward Classes community. The learned Single Judge, however, repelled the arguments that the order was passed on the basis of the orders passed by this High Court. The learned Single Judge also took the view that, as the appellant was not found to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community in law, he cannot be treated as a member of Scheduled Caste community. The learned Single Judge proceeded to hold, prima facie, that the appellant had not made out a case for grant of interim relief and took the view that after filing of the counter affidavit, the matter may be examined, for which two weeks' time was granted.

We heard Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand.

Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that actually under Section 138 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016, there is no power to remove the Pradhan (appellant herein) on the ground that he had obtained caste certificate as alleged. Apparently, the matter relates to suspension of the appellant as Pradhan. Section 138 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016, apparently, appears to be the law governing the field. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out the grounds available for removing a Pradhan and would submit that the grounds, which are apparently made against the appellant, are not available in the said provision. In fact, we notice that in Section 138 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016, there is a provision relating to suspension of Pradhan. We notice from the order itself that the learned Single Judge has noted the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no power in the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 to remove the appellant.

In the circumstances, we are of the view, after hearing the learned Chief Standing Counsel also, that the appellant must be given an opportunity to move review/recall of the impugned order, where this aspect can be pressed by her.

Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal with liberty to the appellant to move review/recall, where he can raise all his contentions, and we also request the learned Single Judge to dispose of such application at the earliest.

The appeal will stand disposed of as above.

Let certified copy of this order be issued today itself.