By the Court.—This is a bunch of petitions filed by the Block-Pramukhs challenging the clarification issued by the Government of India vide circular dated 3rd August, 2007, by means of which it has been maintained that at the Block Level, the Programme Officer will be the essential signatory of the joint account, but the officer next to him exclusively looking after the work under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NREGA’) or the Accounts Officer of the Block shall be the second signatory of the joint account at the Block level.

2. The grievance is against the nomination of the second signatory only.

3. Under challenge is also the circulars issued by the State Government on 7th September, 2007, in compliance of the aforesaid directive of the Central Government providing that under NREGA scheme, the accounts will be operated upon by the joint signatures of the Block Development Officer/Programme Officer and the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) of the same Block. The scheme as notified by the State Government on 5th October, 2007 under Section 4(1), saying that the account shall be operated upon by the joint signatures of the Programme Officer (Block Development Officer) and the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) of that block, is also under challenge.

4. All these writ petitions have been filed by the Block Pramukhs namely; various Kshettra Panchayats, which are block level Panchayats.

5. For giving effect to the directive/clarification issued by the Central Government clause 6.4 of the U.P. Gramin Rozgar (Sanshodhan) Yojna, notified by the State Government under Section 4 sub-section (1) of the NREGA, has been amended by means of the impugned notification dated 5th October, 2007. Prior to the aforesaid notification dated 5th October, 2007, the aforesaid account was to be operated upon by the joint signatures of the Programme Officer (Block Development Officer) and the Block Pramukhs but by means of the aforesaid modification, the Block Pramukhs have been excluded from the operation of the said account.

6. This is the main grievance of the petitioners as their case is that under the NREGA, the scheme framed therein and for their implementation, the power to operate the NREGA accounts cannot be divested from the Block Pramukhs as the Kshettra Panchayats are the bodies which have been entrusted the responsibility for implementation of the scheme, which cannot be effectively fulfilled unless the said account is operated upon by the Block Pramukh jointly with the Programme Officer.

7. It is also the case of the petitioners that earlier the State Government under the powers conferred under Section 4, sub-section (1) of the Act, framed the scheme in which it had provided for operation of the said account under the joint signatures of the Programme Officer and the Block Pramukh but despite their being no confusion and no statutory requirement, the Central Government issued a clarification purportedly in exercise of the power under Section 27 of the Act and consequently the State Government has modified the scheme which is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and against the constitutional scheme as well as the provisions of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam as amended by the Constitution Seventy Third Amendment.

8. For appreciating the controversy involved in these petitions, it would be appropriate to have a glance upon the background, object and scheme of the Act.

9. Productive absorption of under-employed and surplus labour force in the rural sector has been a major focus of planning for rural development. The gravity of the situation of unemployment stands compounded by the absence of social security mechanism. In order to provide direct supplementary wage employment to the rural poor through public works, many programmes were initiated by the Government of India, namely, National Rural Employment Programme (NREP), Rural Landless Employment Guarant