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

2022 Supreme(Ori) 646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, R.K. Pattanaik, JJ.
Suryakanti Sahu & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) Nos. 17710, 9982 of 2012 and 5268, 24862 of 2013
Decided On : 23-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel, for the Respondent

The State Government has the authority to prescribe the method of recruitment and conditions of service for the appointment of Jogana Sahayak in a Gram Panchayat.

Headnote:

Jogana Sahayak - Validity of Circulars for Appointment - Article 243G of the Constitution of India, Rules 212 and 219 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Rules, 1968 - The Court found no ground for interference with the impugned circulars dated 21st April and 27th April 2012 of the State Government.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitions raised a common issue concerning the validity of the circulars/instructions issued by the State Government setting down the procedure for the appointment of Jogana Sahayak in a Gram Panchayat (GP). The main ground of challenge was that the procedure set down in the impugned circulars are contrary to Article 243G of the Constitution of India and Rules 212 and 219 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Rules, 1968 (OGP Rules).

Finding of the Court:

The Court found no ground for interference with the impugned circulars dated 21st April and 27th April 2012 of the State Government. The appointment of Opposite Party No.5 as Jogana Sahayak was found to have no illegality.

Issues: Validity of circulars/instructions issued by the State Government for the appointment of Jogana Sahayak in a Gram Panchayat.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the procedure for appointment of the Jogana Sahayak was not contrary to Article 243G of the Constitution of India or Rules 212 to 217 of the OGP Rules. The Court also found no conflict of interest with the function of the Sub-Collector in the appointment process.

Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed and the interim orders were vacated. No costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - These four writ petitions raise a common issue concerning the validity of the circulars/instructions issued by the State Government setting down the procedure for the appointment of Jogana Sahayak in a Gram Panchayat (GP).

The four writ petitions

2. W.P.(C) No.17710 of 2012 by an elected Sarpanch of the Sirijapali GP in Kalahandi District challenges the circulars dated 21st April 2012 and 27th April 2012 of the Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department, Government of Odisha setting down the procedure for appointment of Jogana Sahayak in a GP. The main ground of challenge is that the procedure set down in the impugned circulars are contrary to Article 243G of the Constitution of India and Rules 212 and 219 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Rules, 1968 (OGP Rules).

3. While directing notice to issue in the said writ petition, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned circular dated 27th April 2012 for a period of two weeks. On 17th July 2017, the following order was passed:

    'Heard learned counsel for the parties.

    The short question remains to be decided here is that in the event the Sub-Divisional Officer i.e. the Sub-Collector being the appellate authority following the provision contained Section 133 of the O.G.P. Act can he be the Chairman for the selection of 'Jogana Sahayaka'. Even though the period of Sarpanch is already over but looking to the allegation involving the impugned action and for the change in the situation in the meantime as the duty of the P.D.S. supply has already been vested with the Sarpanch, it appears, such question shall be decided provided the above situation still exists.

    Learned State Counsel is not in a position to answer to the above question.

    List this matter on 24th of July, 2017 along with its other connected cases listed today. Learned State Counsel is directed to obtain instruction in the matter in the meantime.

    Interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date.'

By a subsequent order on 24th July 2017, the matter was directed to be placed before the Division Bench.

4. In W.P.(C) No.9982 of 2012 by Dharamu Sen Meher, a Sales Assistant working in the Gandabahali GP, District- Nuapada, the challenge is to a resolution dated 10th April 2012 of the Sarpanch of the said GP regarding the selection of Opposite Party No.5 as Jogana Sahayak of the said GP. In this writ petition, while issuing notice on 6th July 2012, an interim order was passed that any appointment made would be subject to the result of the writ petition.

5. As far as W.P.(C) No.5268 of 2013 is concerned, it is by the elected Sarpanch of Jaringi GP in Kalahandi District. Notice was issued in this petition on 18th April 2013 and although no specific interim order was passed on that date, on the next date i.e., 8th January 2014, it was mentioned 'Interim order passed earlier shall continue till then (17th January 2014)', after which, the interim order was not continued.

6. In W.P.(C) No.24862 of 2013 by Jyotsna Sunani, the Jogana Sahayak of Jaringi GP, the prayer is for a direction to the District Panchayat Officer, Kalahandi (DPO) (Opposite Party No.3) and the Block Development Officer, Jungarh (BDO) (Opposite Party No.4) to act upon the resolution of the GP approving the appointment of the Petitioner as Jogana Sahayak under Section 213 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1968 (OGP Act) and the OGP Rules. In this writ petition, notice was directed to issue on 20th December 2013 and no interim order was passed.

7. Pursuant to the notice issued, counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.(C) No.17710 of 2012 by the DPO Kalahandi and in W.P.(C) No.9982 of 2012 by the BDO, Sinapali, District-Nuapada.

8. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that para 5 of the letter dated 27th April 2012 of the Collector and District Magistrate, Kalahandi sets down the procedure for appointment of Jogana Sahayak as under:

    'xxx xxx xxx The GPs shall make a resolution in their meeting to appoint a Jogana Sahayak if they are

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