The term 'employment' in the disqualification rule encompasses both regular and temporary roles, thus applying to the husband of the petitioner and justifying the nomination rejection.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This writ application involves interpretation of the provision under sub-Rule (7) of Rule-3 of ODISHA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS RULES , 1958 (for short OAPM Rules), invoking which the nomination paper of the petitioner in the election of members of Panposh Regulated Market Committee (RMC) was rejected by the Election Officer.

2. Facts

Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is an elected ward member of Biramitrapur Municipality. By Notification dated 12.09.2024, he Election Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Panposh notifiṭed the dates of election of members to Panposh RMC. The petitioner submitted her nomination paper on the date fixed. At the time of scrutiny on 23.10.2024, the Election Officer rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that her husband Bijay Bhengara is an employee of Panposh RMC for which she is disqualified as per the Rule 3 (7) of the OAPM Rules.

3. Case of the Petitioner

According to the petitioner, such rejection of her nomination is entirely illegal as Sub-Rule (7) of Rule-3 does not apply to her because she has her own income from a Women’s Self-help Group whereas her husband was appointed on contractual basis by the secretary of Panposh, RMC on daily wage basis and is not a regular employee. Further, her husband was subsequently engaged to work against the post of market guard which has not yet been approved though the Secretary, Panposh, RMC has recommended for the same. The result of election was declared on 12.11.2024 and because of rejection of the petitioner’s nomination paper no nominated member could be a part of the RMC. It is stated in addition that the petitioner gets allowance of Rs. 1,000/- from the Municipality as a Councilor and being the only daughter of her parents besides a brother, she resides in the house of her parents at Biramitrapur and runs a grocery shop earning about Rs. 6,000/- per month. According to the petitioner, the Election Officer has misinterpreted the provision under Rule 3(7) of the Rules.

4. Stand of the State Opposite Parties

The stand of the Opposite Parties is that the petitioner’s husband Bijay Bhengara was appointed as Market Guard vide order dated 04.10.2018 under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme with approval of the OAPM Board. The election Officer has acted strictly within the rules to reject the nomination of the petitioner. Since her husband works for the Market Committee, it must be held that she indirectly benefits from such employment and therefore, Rule 3 (7) applies.

5. Submissions

Heard Mr. P.K.Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State.

6. Mr. Jena would argue that the Election-Officer has completely misinterpreted the relevant statutory provision inasmuch as the petitioner’s husband is admittedly not a regular employee but engaged on daily wage basis with his engagement yet to be approved. He further submits that no opportunity of hearing was accorded by the election officer to the petitioner before rejecting her nomination paper. Had such opportunity been given, the petitioner could have demonstrated the fact that she has her own independent source of income and that she does not depend on her husband’s income in any manner. The Election Officer has however drawn adverse inference and acted on presumption.

7. Mr. Pattnaik, learned AGA on the other hand, would submit that the disqualification clause is clear and unambiguous. It does not make any distinction between regular or temporary employees. Since it is