Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 94
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.
Santosh s/o. Jagannath Galbe - Petitioner
Versus
The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6776 OF 2024
Decided On : 30-03-2026
Important Points
Subject
Local Self-Government - Panchayat Disqualification
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.101(1)(a), Art.227, Art.41
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE ACT: S.28
Headnote
(B) Office of profit - Tests - Appointing authority (Gram Sabha, not Panchayat); remuneration source (scheme admin expenses); service conditions (contractual, occasional) - Such post not office/place of profit of Panchayat. Constitutional basis in Articles 102(1)(a), 191(1)(a). (Paras 5.11 to 5.16)
Facts of the case:
Elected Village Panchayat member also working as Gram Rojgar Sevak under Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011. Disqualification complaint filed alleging office of profit/interest under Sections 14(1)(f),(g). District Collector disqualified; appellate authority confirmed. Writ petition against both orders.
Findings of Court:
Disqualification orders quashed and set aside. Petitioner not disqualified u/s 14(1)(f) or (g); position as elected member restored forthwith if Panchayat term subsists.
Issues: Whether Gram Rojgar Sevak post constitutes salaried office/place of profit under Panchayat or involves share/interest in Panchayat works/contracts/employment attracting disqualification u/s 14(1)(f),(g).
Ratio Decidendi: Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011 clarifies Gram Rojgar Sevak not employed by Panchayat but by Gram Sabha; no salary from Panchayat; honorarium from scheme's 6% admin expenses; no direct/indirect interest in Panchayat activities - Service conditions exclude from disqualification provisions.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
For the Petitioner:Mr.Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate for petitioner
For the Respondent:Mrs.M.L.Sangit, AGP, Mr.N.R.Pawade, Advocate, Mr.G.V.Mohekar, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. gram rojgar sevak post disqualification under s.14(1)(f),(g). (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. elected member as sevak disqualified by authorities. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT :
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Considering the nature of controversy and apprehension of the petitioner to face the same objection of disqualification in the ensuing election, the petition is taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. SUBJECT–MATTER :-
Whether the post of ‘Gram Rojgar Sevak’ under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 r/w. MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE ACT , 2005 and Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme reinforced by the Government of Maharashtra fall within the definition of an office of profit or a salaried position in the office of a Panchayat AND is hit by disqualification under Section 14 (1)(f) or (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (“the Act of 1958” for brevity) is the point for consideration in this Writ Petition.
3. FACTS :-
3.1 The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner is an elected Member of Village Panchayat, Devegaon, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani. He used to work as a Gram Rojgar Sevak under the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011.
3.2 The respondent no.3 filed a complaint/dispute against the petitioner before the District Collector, Parbhani, seeking petitioner’s disqualification under Section 14 (1)(f) and (g) of the Act. The respondent no.4 is the one who is conducting functions of the Grampanchayat and was also a party respondent no.1 in the dispute.
3.3 It was the contention of the disputant/respondent no.3 that admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Gram Rojgar Sevak. That, it is a post of profit and interest. The petitioner was getting remuneration from the said post and had interest in the Grampanchayat. As such, the respondent no.3 contended that the petitioner was to be held disqualified to continue as a Member under Section 14 (1)(f)(g) of the Act of 1958.
3.4 The petitioner defended the complaint and denied that he was disqualified under the given provisions of the Act of 1958. It was his reply that he was working as a Gram Rojgar Sevak in view of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011. He would submit that in terms of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011, the petitioner was neither employed by the Grampanchayat nor was holding any salaried office or a position of profit in the gift or disposal of the Panchayat while holding his position.
3.5 The Petitioner also submitted that in the sense he is not directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, has any share or interest in the work done by the order of the Panchayat or in any contract with, by or on behalf of, or employment with or under, the Panchayat. As such, the petitioner prayed to dismiss the complaint of disqualification lodged by the Respondent No.3.
3.6 The Authority to decide disqualification of an elected member of Village Panchayat rests with the District Collector u/s 14 of the Act of 1958. The respondent no.2 – District Collector heard the parties to the dispute. At the conclusion of the hearing,the Collector agreed with the objections raised by the respondent no.3. Consequently,vide order dated 03.01.2024, the respondent no.2 held the petitioner disqualified to continue on the post of Member of the Grampanchayat under Section 4(1)(f) (g) of the Act of 1958.
3.7 The petitioner challenged the disqualification order in an appeal under Section 16 (2) of the Act of 1958 before the respondent no.1. However, vide order dated 27.06.2024 the respondent no.1 concurred with the findings rendered by the respondent no.3. Hence, the petitioner has challenged both orders referred supra in this Writ Petition.
4. SUBMISSIONS:-
4.1. Mr. Mahesh Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me to the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2011. He would submit that from the plain reading of the clause no.1 of the Gove
