AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Re: CAN No.6407 of 2018
This is an application for restoration.
The State authorities are represented.
The causes shown in the application are accepted as sufficient. The order dated July 25, 2018 is recalled.
WP No.19491(W) of 2009 is restored to its file and number.
CAN No.6407 of 2018 is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
W.P. No.19491(W) of 2009
By consent of the parties, WP No.19491(W) of 2009 is treated as on day’s list and is taken up for consideration.
A termination of a Samprasarika is under challenge in the present writ petition.
The petitioner was appointed as Samprasarika on May 2, 2005.
Learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the appointment of the petitioner was made prior to the notifications dated January
14, 2005 and February 15, 2005 coming into effect.By such notifications the authorities decided not to give appointment to near relations of the
Panchayat bodies. He submits that, since the appointment of the petitioner was made prior to the embargo coming into effect and such appointment
being denied subsequent to the embargo coming into effect, the appointment should be continued with. Moreover, the authorities have purported to
appoint a male member as a Samprasarak when the post was reserved for a female candidate.
The State is represented.
It appears from the records that, the petitioner is the wife of a person who was a Saha Sabhadhipati at the time of grant of initial appointment. The
initial appointment was made on May 2, 2005. The appointment is periodic. The contract for initial appointment specified that, the contract would be
valid till April, 2006. Apparently, the appointment was extended from time to time till 2008 as claimed on behalf of the petitioner.
Be that as it may, there is a requirement of the State that, near relations of the Panchayat body will not be given appointment. The petitioner stands
disqualified on such requirement. The subsequent extension in favour of the petitioner made after January 14, 2005 ought not to have been granted.
The petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of something which was done incorrectly by the State authorities.
In such circumstances, I find no merit in the present writ petition.
WP No.19491(W) of 2009 is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.