R N A BRITTO Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.N.A. Britto, the appellant had been appointed as the Secretary of the Bajpe Pachyat, established under the provisions of the Karnataka Village and Local Boards Act, 1959 - "the Act". The Chief Executive Officer of Mangalore Taluk Development Board, Respondent 1 issued a 'Memo' dated November 4, 1986 to the appellant stating therein that his service as Secretary of the Bajpe Panchayat, had stood terminated. The appellant challenged the said termination of his service as Secretary of the Bajpe Panchayat, by an application made before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal - "the Tribunal", established under the provisions of the Adminstrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - "the Tribunals Act". But, by its Order dated September 20, 1988 the Tribunal rejected the application on the gound that it had no jurisdiction to decide upon the matter. However, the appellant made an application before the Tribunal seeking review of its earlier order. That review application of the appellant was also rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated January 22, 1992, reiterating its earlier view that it had no jurisdiction to decide on the matter of termination of the appellant's service as Secretary of Panchayat, in that, he was not in the civil service of the State or in a civil post under the State which would have given it the jurisdiction to decide upon the matter under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Tribunals Act. It is the said order of the Tribunal which has been impugned by the appellant in this appeal by special leave.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant being a Secretary of a Panchayat established under the Act serving in connection with the affairs of the local authority was a State Government servant and hence the Tibunal had jurisdiction under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Tibunals Act to decide upon the matter relating to termination of his service as Secretary of the Panchayat. On the contrary, it was contended for the State and other respondents, that the appellant who was the Secretary of a Panchayat established under the Act was not a State Government servant and hence the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellant's application on its view that it had no jurisdiction to decide upon the matter of termination of his service as Secreatery of Bajpe Panchayat established under the Act.

(3.) If regard is had to the above rival contentions urged in this appeal, the short question which needs our consideration in deciding the appeal would be the following: Is a Secretary of a panchahayat established under the act, a state government servant entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide upon the matter of termination of his service under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Tribunals Act