P. MALLAPPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is working as a Data Entry Operator in Bagali Grama Panchayat, Harappanahalli Taluk, Davangere District. By an Official Memorandum, dated 19.06.2013, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Davangere, directed the Chief Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Harapanahalli, to terminate the service of the petitioner. The Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Harappanahalli on 27.06.2013, directed that the petitioner be transferred to Chigateri Grama Panchayat in place of Smt. B.T. Gowramma, who is working as Data Entry Operator therein. When the petitioner went to report for duty at Chigateri Grama Panchayat, he was informed that the order of transfer cannot be acted upon and an endorsement dated 04.07.2013 addressed to the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Harappanahalli, seeking revocation of order of transfer was issued. As a result, the petitioner reported back at Bagali Grama Panchayat, which passed a resolution on 05.07.2013, that the petitioner should be taken back to duty, as Data Entry Operator. A resolution was passed to continue the service of the petitioner. After the meeting was closed, on the pressure exacted by non -Panchayat members, a meeting having been held and a resolution having been passed that a new Data Entry Operator should be appointed for Bagali Grama Panchayat, vide Annexure -E1, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed, to quash the resolution dated 05.07.2013, vide Annexure -E1 of the 1st respondent and for grant of consequential reliefs. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Senior advocate, contended that the resolution vide Annexure -E having been passed and the meeting of the Panchayat having been concluded, the subsequent resolution passed vide Annexure -E1 is contrary to the provisions in Ss. 112 and 113 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act'). He contended that the petitioner has been subjected to arbitrary action and Annexure -E1 is an attempt to illegally ousts the petitioner from service of the 5th respondent. He contended that Annexure -E1 being wholly illegal is liable to be quashed.

(2.) SRI N.R. Jagadeeswara, learned advocate for respondents 3 to 5, on the other hand, by taking me through the statement of objections filed on 11.09.2013, contended that the petitioner has no right to question the resolution, as at Annexure -E1. He submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as against the resolution vide Annexure -E1 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) LATER on, a meeting has taken place and the resolution, as at Annexure -E1 has been passed, to appoint new personnel to the post of Data Entry Operator in Bagali Grama Panchayat i.e., by issuing notification and calling for applications.