Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
P. BASI REDDY, SAMBASIVA RAO, JJ.)
Chintapudi Yerraiah - Petitioner
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer and Deputy Election Authority, Gudur & others, - Respondents.
W.P. No. 851 of 1964
Decided on : 5-8-1968
The nomination of a candidate for election to a Gram Panchayat cannot be rejected on the ground that the proposer happens to be the Head Master of a Zilla Parishad High School.
Headnote:
ELECTION - NOMINATION - REJECTION - GROUNDS - PROPOSER BEING HEAD MASTER OF ZILLA PARISHAD HIGH SCHOOL - VALIDITY - ANDHRA PRADESH GRAM PANCHAYATS ACT, 1964 (ACT 3 OF 1964), SEC. 16, 17, 18, 19 - ANDHRA PRADESH GRAM PANCHAYATS ELECTION RULES, 1964, RULE 4(2), 8(2).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a voter in the Kota Gram Panchayat, filed his nomination as a Girijan candidate for election to the sixth constituency. His nomination was proposed by T. Sundaresam, the Head Master of the Zilla Parishad High School in Kota, who was also appointed as a reserve election officer for the panchayat elections of Kota Block. The Election Officer rejected the petitioner's nomination on the ground that a government servant cannot contest for the elections and that the proposer has all the rights which the candidate has. The petitioner appealed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who upheld the rejection of the nomination.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's nomination was patently erroneous in law. The court found that the Election Rules do not impose a ban on an employee of a local body from subscribing to a nomination paper as a proposer. The court also found that the grounds mentioned by the Election Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer for rejecting the nomination were not specified in the Election Rules as grounds for rejection.
Issues: Whether the nomination of a candidate for election to a Gram Panchayat is liable to be rejected on the ground that the proposer happens to be the Head Master of a Zilla Parishad High School?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nomination of a candidate for election to a Gram Panchayat cannot be rejected on the ground that the proposer happens to be the Head Master of a Zilla Parishad High School. The court found that the Election Rules do not impose a ban on an employee of a local body from subscribing to a nomination paper as a proposer. The court also found that the grounds mentioned by the Election Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer for rejecting the nomination were not specified in the Election Rules as grounds for rejection.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition in part and set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer upholding the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner by the Election Officer. However, the court did not set aside the election as the interim order passed by the court while admitting the writ petition did not stay the declaration of election.
JUDGMENT :
BASI REDDY, A.C.J.:— Is the nomination of a candidate for election to a Gram Panchayat liable to be rejected on the ground that the proposer happens to be the Head Master of a Zilla Parishad High School? That is the short and interesting question which is mooted in this Writ Petition.
2. The Petitioner is one Chintapudi Yerriah. He is a ratepayar of the Kota Gram Panchayat and is a voter therein. His serial number is 974. The elections to the Kota Gram Panchayat were notified to take place in May, 1964. The petitioner filed his nomination on 18-5-64 as a Girijan candidate in the sixth constituency. His nomination was proposed by one T. Sundaresam who is a voter in that constituency. This person also happens to be the Head Master of the Zilla Parishad High School in Kota. The nomination of the petitioner was rejected by the Election Officer by an order dated 19-5-1964. The order reads thus:
“Sri Chintapudi Yerriah has contested as a candidate for the sixth ward of Kota Gram Panchayat. He has been proposed by one Sri Tiripurari Sundaresam Sri Tripurari Sundaresam is the Head Master of the Zilla Parish ad High School, Kota. He has also been appointed by the R.D.O., Gudur, as reserve election officer for the panchayat elections of Kota Block. No Government servant can contest for the elections. The proposer can present the nomination paper of the candidate and he can also file an application for withdrawal on behalf of the candidate that means the proposer has got all the rights which the candidate has. Therefore, a Government servant (any Government servant mentioned in the Election Rules) who has also been appointed as an Election Officer for the same Block, cannot propose a candidate.
Therefore the nomination paper filed by Sri Chintapudi Yarraiah as a candidate for the sixth ward of Kota Panchayat is hereby rejected”.
3. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the Deputy Election Authority, who by his order dated 22-5-64, dismissed the appeal and his order runs as follows:
“Chintapudi Yerraiah of Kota preferred an appeal against the order of the Election Officer of Zone No. III of Kota Block.
The Election Officer rejected the nomination of the appellant for constituency No. VI of Kota on the grounds that the proposer is a Head Master of Zilla Parishad High School, Kota, who is also a Reserve Election Officer for Kota Block and as he is a Government servant he is disqualified from proposing the nomination of appellant. The contention of the appellant is that there is no legal prohibition against any employee of Zilla Parishad being a proposer for any candidate for membership of Panchayat. He also contends that the proposer is not disqualified either under Panchayat Act or under the Rules made thereunder and that the rejection of nomination paper is not supported by any section of law, rules or regulation. The proposer is working as Head Master in Kota Zilla Parishad High School. According to sub-rule 4 of rule 23 of Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1958 no Government servant shall canvass or otherwise interfere or use his influence in connection with or take part in any election to local authorities or bodies save in respect of Government servant required or permitted by or under any law or order of the State Government for the time being in force to be a candidate at such election. Hence the Election Officer has rightly rejected the nomination of the appellant. The appeal is therefore rejected and the order of the Election Officer is upheld.
Sd/-
Deputy Election Authority & Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur;”
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting his appeal, the petitioner filed this writ petition stating that the rejection of his nomination was illegal and praying that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and that of the Election officer be quashed; that the election to the sixth ward of the Kora Gram Panchayat be stayed; an
