SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Bom) 74

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Z.A. HAQ, J.
Narayan Dinbaji Jambhule - Petitioner
Versus
Election Commission of India, through its Chief Election Commission – Respondent
Election Petition No.4 of 2014
Decided on : 19-01-2017.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri P.S. Wathore, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri G.N. Khanzode, Advocate

Important Point: The disqualification will be attracted on juristic cessation of employee-employer relationship.

Headnote:Election Petition--- Representation of the People Act, 1951--- Section 81--- Section 83---Section 82---Section 100(1)(d)(i)---The Constitution of India---Article 191(1)(a)--- Nomination paper--- Office of profit---Disqualified to contest---The disqualification will be attracted on juristic cessation of employee-employer relationship---Clause 4 of the Government Resolution dated 2nd December, 1997 is not the substantive provision dealing with the substantive rights of the Government employee---It only creates the fiction for ascertaining the date from which the relationship of employee and employer ceases on submission of resignation---It would be hazardous to read clause 4 of the Government Resolution dated 2nd December, 1997 to mean that it confers an absolute right on the Government employee to walk out if there is some default on the part of the competent authority in informing him that his resignation is not accepted for some reason--- Though the respondent has brought evidence on record to show that he has not received any monetary benefit from the State Government it cannot be said that the respondent was not disqualified to be chosen as a Member of the Legislative Assembly----Election of the respondent is set aside.

       Result—Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri P.S. Wathore, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for the respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short “Act of 1951”) praying that the decision of the Returning Officer dated 30th September, 2014 accepting the nomination paper of respondent No.5 Dr. Deorao Madguji Holi be quashed. The petitioner has prayed for declaration that the election of respondent No.5 from 68, Gadchiroli (S.T.) Legislative Assembly Constituency of State of Maharashtra is void. The petitioner has prayed that the election of respondent No.5 as Member of Legislative Assembly from the above Constituency be set aside and fresh elections for the above referred Constituency be ordered.

3. The challenge of the petitioner is substantially based on the ground that on the date of submission of the nomination paper, the respondent No.5 was holding “office of profit” being in Government employment as Medical Officer, in Class-II, Group “A” Services and, therefore, he was disqualified to contest the election and his nomination paper could not have been accepted by the Returning Officer. The claim of the petitioner is that because of the improper acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No.5, the result of the election is materially affected and, therefore, the election of the respondent No.5 be set aside and fresh elections be ordered. The petitioner has relied on the provisions of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act of 1951.

4. It is not disputed by the contesting parties that the respondent No.5 Dr. Deorao Madguji Holi was working as Medical Officer on temporary basis in the payscale of Rs.8,000/-13,500/ when by order issued on 9th February, 2009 he was absorbed in the payscale of Rs.8,000/-13,500/ in Maharashtra Medical and Health Services Group “A”. Pursuant to the above order, the respondent no.5 continued in the post of Medical Officer.

According to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 continued as Medical Officer on 30th September, 2014 when the nomination paper of respondent No.5 was accepted by the Returning Officer. The petitioner claims that even subsequently i.e. on the date of voting and declaration of result and subsequent to that also, the respondent No.5 continued as the Medical Officer in the employment of the Government of Maharashtra.

According to the respondent No.5, he had given notice dated 19th August, 2013 disclosing his intention/ decision to resign from the post of Medical Officer w.e.f. 30th October, 2013. The issuance of the notice dated 19th August, 2013 and the receipt of it by the Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai is not disputed. The contention of the respondent No.5 is that the notice given by him became effective from 19th September, 2013 and he ceased to be in the employment w.e.f 19th September, 2013.

The respondent No.5 relied on Clause (4) of the Government Resolution dated 2nd December, 1997 to substantiate the above contention. Clause (4) of the Government Resolution dated 2nd December, 1997 lays down that the Competent Authority shall immediately take action on receipt of notice of resignation and should intimate the decision taken by the Competent Authority on the proposal of the government employee regarding resignation, within one month. It lays down if the Competent Authority fails to communicate its decision to the government employee within one month from the date of receipt of the notice/application of resignation, then it will be deemed that the resignation of the government employee is accepted by the Competent Authority. Alternate case of the respondent No.5 is that his resignation became effective from 30th September, 2013 as per his letter of resignation. The respondent No.5 has pleaded and has led evidence to support his claim that he has not reported on duty since 1st October, 2013 and he is n





















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top