Sri P. Mallappa vs The Union of India and Others

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner is working as a Data Entry Operator in Bagali Grama Panchayat, Harappanahalli Taluk, Davangere District. By an Official Memorandum, dated 19.06.2013, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Davangere, directed the Chief Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Harapanahalli, to terminate the service of the petitioner. The Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Harappanahalli on 27.06.2013, directed that the petitioner be transferred to Chigateri Grama Panchayat in place of Smt. B.T. Gowramma, who is working as Data Entry Operator therein. When the petitioner went to report for duty at Chigateri Grama Panchayat, he was informed that the order of transfer cannot be acted upon and an endorsement dated 04.07.2013 addressed to the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Harappanahalli, seeking revocation of order of transfer was issued. As a result, the petitioner reported back at Bagali Grama Panchayat, which passed a resolution on 05.07.2013, that the petitioner should be taken back to duty, as Data Entry Operator. A resolution was passed to continue the service of the petitioner. After the meeting was closed, on the pressure exacted by non-Panchayat members, a meeting having been held and a resolution having been passed that a new Data Entry Operator should be appointed for Bagali Grama Panchayat, vide Annexure-E1, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed, to quash the resolution dated 05.07.2013, vide Annexure-E1 of the 1st respondent and for grant of consequential reliefs. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Senior advocate, contended that the resolution vide Annexure-E having been passed and the meeting of the Panchayat having been concluded, the subsequent resolution passed vide Annexure-E1 is contrary to the provisions in Ss. 112 and 113 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act (for short ''the Act''). He contended that the petitioner has been subjected to arbitrary action and Annexure-E1 is an attempt to illegally ousts the petitioner from service of the 5th respondent. He contended that Annexure-E1 being wholly illegal is liable to be quashed.

Sri N.R. Jagadeeswara, learned advocate for respondents 3 to 5, on the other hand, by taking me through the statement of objections filed on 11.09.2013, contended that the petitioner has no right to question the resolution, as at Annexure-E1. He submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as against the resolution vide Annexure-E1 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The 5th respondent having issued the order, as at Annexure-B, the petitioner was relieved from duty vide Annexure-C. Chigateri Grama Panchayat has issued a communication, as at Annexure-D, in response to Annexures''-B and C. The 5th respondent has passed the resolution, dated 05.07.2013, as at Annexure-E, to continue the service of the petitioner as Data Entry Operator and that Annexure-E shows that all the subjects in the agenda having been transacted, the meeting was concluded.

Later on, a meeting has taken place and the resolution, as at Annexure-E1 has been passed, to appoint new personnel to the post of Data Entry Operator in Bagali Grama Panchayat i.e., by issuing notification and calling for applications.

S. 50 of the Act is with regard to the procedure at meeting of the Grama Panchayat. S. 52 of the Act stipulates that the Grama Panchayat shall meet for transaction of business. Sub-S. (3) mandates that 7 days clear notice of an ordinary meeting and three clear days notice of a special meeting, specifying the place, date and time of such meeting and the business to be transacted there at, shall be given by the Panchayat Development Officer (for short ''the PDO'') of the Grama Panchayat to the members etc. The meeting convened having transacted the business as per agenda, after passing the resolution on 05.07.2013, vide Annexure-E, the meeting was concluded.

Even though, the PDO has not issued any notice under Sub-S. (3) of S. 52 of the Act, after conclusion of the meeting on 05.07.2013, few members of the 5th respondent have met and have passed the resolution, as at Annexure-E1. The said resolution being wholly arbitrary and illegal i.e., contrary to the provisions, noticed supra and as the same is likely to have an adverse effect on the resolution passed earlier, vide Annexure-E, whereby, the petitioner''s service has been continued in the 5th respondent Panchayat as Data Entry Operator, the petitioner is justified in filing this writ petition seeking to quash the resolution, as at Annexure-E1. Ordinarily, writ petition, as at Annexure-E1 would not have been entertained. But in view of the sequence of events commencing from 19.06.2013 upto 05.07.2013, noticed supra, there being an extraordinary situation and the 5th respondent having not met and transacted the business relating to Annexure-E1, in accordance with law, the objection of Sri N.R. Jagadeeswara with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition is overruled. The Authority before whom, said resolution could have challenged having also acted in the matter, which becomes clear from the sequence of facts, noticed supra, the writ petition as against Annexure-E1, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is held as maintainable. Annexure-E1 having not been passed in a properly convened meeting, the same is unsustainable.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part and the resolution of the 5th respondent, dated 05.07.2013, as at Annexure-E1 is quashed. However, it is open to the 5th respondent to take action, if any, in accordance with law.

No costs.